Preamble

The House met at a Quarter past Two, o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

COMMERCIAL GAS BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

SOUTH SUBURBAN GAS BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL

"to regulate the expenditure on capital account and lending of money by the London County Council during the financial period from the first day of April one thousand nine hundred and forty-five to the thirtieth day of September one thousand nine hundred and forty-six and for other purposes," presented, read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLAND

Press Correspondents' Visits

Captain Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if members of His Majesty's Embassy in Moscow and Press correspondents are now able to visit that part of Poland which has been liberated by the Russian Army.

Major Lord Willoughby de Eresby: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of British and American reporters now in Poland.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): Since His Majesty's Government do not recognise the Polish Provisional Government at Warsaw, no

member of His Majesty's Embassy at Moscow has yet entered liberated Poland. A number of Press correspondents have been able to visit Poland since the New Year, but no British correspondents are now there.

Captain Gammans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the good faith of the Yalta Agreement, to which His Majesty's Government are committed, is very largely dependent upon whether or not facilities of this sort are going to be permitted?

Mr. Eden: My hon. and gallant Friend asked whether a representative of His Majesty's Embassy in Moscow has gone and I explained to him that, as we do not recognise the Provisional Government, that cannot be. As regards Press representatives, we should very much welcome the very widest circulation of Press representatives.

New Provisional Government

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made in the negotiations in Moscow with the object, of forming a new Government of Poland.

Squadron-Leader Donner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any progress has been made at Moscow in constituting a new Polish Government.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the final composition of the Polish Provisional Government has yet been completed.

Major Peto: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs' whether he has received any further reports of arrests or deportations of Poles from the territories both east and west of the provisional demarcation line fixed at Yalta since the conference held at that place; how many persons are involved; and whether they have since been returned to their homes.

Mr. Ralph Etherton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements have now been come to in relation to the holding of free elections in Poland.

Mr. Graham White: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is in a position to make a statement on the progress of the negotiations for the formation of a Polish Provisional Government

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make any statement respecting progress towards the establishment of a provisional government for Poland that will correspond to conditions acceptable to Great Britain, the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. and whose representatives will be recognised at the forthcoming San Francisco Conference.

Captain Alan Graham: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet obtained from the Soviet Government any explanation of their policy of arrests and deportations of prominent Polish citizens, Red Cross workers, democratic party leaders and other patriotic loyal Allies of Great Britain 'and the U.S.A.

Mr. Eden: As at present advised my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister proposes to make a statement next week, probably on Thursday, on the work of the Commission of Three in Moscow and on certain other aspects of Russo-Polish relations. I would therefore ask my hon. Friends and the House to be good enough to await that statement. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister may also take this opportunity on Thursday of next week to say something about the war situation in general.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Does it follow from what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that the statement of the Prime Minister will be debatable?

Mr. Eden: My right hon. Friend will make his statement, and if there is a general desire for a Debate, certainly a Debate will follow. We had that in mind.

Mr. Pickthorn: Are we to have the Debate, which I think was promised, 'on San Francisco, before or after this potential Debate on the Prime Minister's statement?

Mr. Eden: That is a matter of Business, which I will deal with later; it does not arise out of these Questions.

Personal Messages (Facilities)

Mr. Henry Brooke: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any facilities yet exist for persons in this country to make inquiries about friends or relatives in Poland, or to send personal messages to them.

Mr. Eden: I understand that the British Red Cross accept inquiries about persons

in Poland, although they cannot undertake that such inquiries will reach their destination or that replies will be received. Inquirers are informed accordingly. There are as yet no facilities for transmitting personal messages.

Mr. Silverman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, for some time past, the radio in Lublin has been publishing lists of survivors with relatives outside Poland; and would he make those lists available to interested persons in this country?

Mr. Eden: If there is any means by which I can do that, and it is desired, I will certainly consider it.

Polish Representatives (Russia)

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information regarding the whereabouts of the Polish representatives who left for the Soviet Union to discuss the formation of the new provisional government Poland of.

Mr. Eden: While I have no confirmation of the reports that these Polish representatives have gone to the Soviet Union to discuss the formation of the new Provisional Government, I have instructed His Majesty's Ambassador at Moscow to make inquiries concerning their whereabouts. When I learn the result of these inquiries, I will report further to the House.

Miss Ward: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when that telegram was despatched and how long it is likely to take?

Mr. Eden: I think it was either yesterday or the day before; I am not sure.

Madame Arciszewska (Release)

Captain Alan Graham: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the release from arrest by the Soviet authorities of Madame Arciszewska, the wife of the Polish Prime Minister, has yet been confirmed by His Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow.

Mr. Eden: As I informed my hon. and gallant Friend in reply to his Question on 7th March, His Majesty's Ambassador received an assurance that the Soviet Government were taking steps to set Madame Arciszewska free. I understand that the Polish Government shortly afterwards received confirmation of her release.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the wives of any other Prime Ministers are in danger in Russia?

Miss Rathbone: Could my right hon. Friend say whether the people belonging to the Polish Red Crass, who were arrested simultaneously with Madame Arciszewska, have been released?

Mr. Eden: I am afraid I could not. I cannot recall whether I made representations for them at the time; I do not think that I did.

Professor Savory: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the wife of the Polish Prime Minister is still obliged to report every day to the police, and can he protest against this continued indignity?

Mr. Eden: I have had information about that and I would like to consider it. I made representations to secure the freedom of this lady, and I would like to consider whether I ought to make any further representations.

Political Parties

Captain Alan Graham: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which political parties in Poland are defined by His Majesty's Government as democratic and non-democratic, respectively; whether these parties are similarly so defined by our Soviet Ally; and whether His Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow is satisfied that all democratic parties in Poland have at the present time freedom to express and to work for their political opinions.

Mr. Eden: His Majesty's Government, the United States Government and the Soviet Government are at present concerned with the first step proposed at the Crimea Conference, the setting up in Poland of a broadly representative new Provisional Government of National Unity such as would command recognition by the Great Powers. When this has been done and His Majesty's Government are represented in Poland, they will be in a better position to form a final opinion as to what parties should be entitled to take part in elections, which clearly could not take place for some considerable time after the formation of the new Government. The scanty information at present available to His Majesty's Government about conditions in Poland

indicates, as one would expect, that, as a result of the long German occupation and the recent operations in Poland, Party political warfare is not yet working in a normal manner. It may also clearly be that before elections were held new parties might emerge.

Captain Graham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the British Government sought, on 27th January, the names of Polish politicians in Poland who might enable the Committee of Ambassadors to form a Provisional Government? Were they then in a position to secure the lives and liberties of those politicians, and are they now in that position?

Mr. Eden: What we are at present trying to do is to secure agreement about Polish democratic leaders. The question of parties comes afterwards. Certainly, it would be part of any arrangement, so far as we are concerned, that if any Polish leaders were invited they should have full security and full right to go where they wished.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is it the intention that all the members of the National Polish Provisional Government shall be Polish citizens?

Mr. Eden: I should have thought that the answer was, "Yes."

Mr. Gallacher: The right hon. Gentleman says that he is awaiting a new Provisional Polish Government. There is nothing about that in the Yalta Agreement.

Mr. Eden: If the hon. Gentleman will read it he will find there the word "new," because I was anxious that it should be there.

BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR (REPATRIATION)

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can report any progress in the scheme for the repatriation of prisoners of war who have been a long time in captivity.

Mr. Eden: I regret that I cannot report any substantial progress in this matter. His Majesty's Government had hoped that a first exchange of this kind could have been carried out at the end of March, the date mentioned in their proposal. It is


clear from the reply which has now been received from the German Government that no early agreement is possible and we have been informed that in any case the German High Command would require eight weeks' notice in order to make the necessary arrangements.

Sir A. Knox: While recognising the great difficulty in which my right hon. Friend finds himself in this matter, is there any suggestion he can make in order to speed up this matter, in view of the terrible anxiety of relatives at the long period these men have been in captivity?

Mr. Eden: My hon. and gallant Friend will know that the military events themselves are having two effects. First, they generally make communications extremely difficult on the German side, and, second, they are, happily, liberating a number of prisoners. The figures so far, I think, are about 3,000 freed by the Red Army from the East and about 7,000 from the West.

Mr. McGovern: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any progress is being made in the negotiations with Japan in relation to the liberation of prisoners?

Mr. Eden: I shall be obliged if the hon. Member will put down that question, as I would like to give a detailed answer.

RUSSIA (GERMAN LABOUR)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the arrangement made at Teheran or Yalta with regard to the supply of free male German labour to the U.S.S.R. after the termination of the war in Europe.

Mr. Eden: It was agreed at the Crimea Conference that a Commission should be established in Moscow to consider the question of the extent and methods for compensating damage caused by Germany to the Allied countries. I am not in a position to anticipate the Commission's recommendations.

Mr. Stokes: Can the Foreign Secretary say whether the rumours prevalent in the Middle East, and in responsible quarters, that it has already been agreed that Russia is to have 2,000,000 German male slaves for 20 years, are entirely without foundation?

Mr. Eden: The Russian Government did not ask for 2,000,000 or any other figure of male slaves for any time at all. All that was asked and settled at Yalta was that reparations in the terms I have put should be discussed at Moscow, and there is no commitment about labour whatever.

Mr. Stokes: Does that apply to Teheran as well?

Mr. Eden: As far as I recall, it was not even mentioned at Teheran.

Mr. Shinwell: If they should, at some future date, require the services of German labour for the purposes of reconstruction, would there be anything wrong in that?

Mr. Eden: I have certainly not ruled it out in my answer. All I have dealt with is the extent of our commitments.

Mr. Stokes: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Hugh Lawson.

Mr. Stokes: On a point of Order. As we may not ask any further supplementary questions on an important point, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

WAR CRIMES (GERMAN VICTIMS)

Mr. Hugh Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the United Nations War Crimes Commission has recommended that Nazi leaders should be held responsible for crimes committed by them against German nationals; whether he has any statement to make on this recommendation; and whether His Majesty's Government propose to treat Nazi leaders, who ordered the killing of German Jews, democrats and Socialists, as war criminals.

Mr. Eden: I am not aware that the United Nations War Crimes Commission has made such a recommendation. As for the remainder of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 31st January by my right hon. Friend the- Minister of State to my hon. Friend the Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss).

Captain MeEwen: Can my right hon. Friend confirm the report which has been circulated this morning that Hitler has been assassinated and that his office is directly responsible?

Mr. Eden: As usual, the 1922 Committee knows the information before the Foreign Office.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: Arising out of the original reply, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to have Germans indicted, or tried or condemned for crimes committed against German subjects?

Mr. Eden: My right hon. Friend's answer dealt with that at some length, and I would advise the hon. and learned Gentleman to look at it.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUMANIA

Political Situation

Captain Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reports he has recently had from the Inter-Allied Control Commission on recent political developments in Rumania; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Eden: As I informed the House on 14th March a new Government assumed office in Rumania on 6th March. The British representative on the Allied Control Commission has been closely watching the situation, but his reports show that the new Government's assumption of office has not so far been marked by any outstanding political developments.

Captain Duncan: In the answer on 14th March my right hon. Friend referred to a strict censorship; may I ask whether that censorship has been lifted?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir, I should think that is most unlikely, but perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend would put that question down.

Bessarabia and Northern Bucovina

Captain Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a large number of Rumanians who have moved from Bessarabia and Northern Bucovina since 1940 into Rumania have recently been ordered to return; and whether he will arrange with the Governments of America and Russia that they be allowed to opt as to whether they wish to return or remain in Rumania.

Mr. Eden: While I have no responsibility for the agreement I Understand that

the Soviet Government acquired Bessarabia and Northern Bucovina by an Agreement with the Rumanian Government of 28th June, 1940. The persons who are now being required to return are those who subsequently left these territories without the agreement of the Soviet authorities. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT translations of a Soviet Decree of March, 1941, and of a recent Administrative Order by the Rumanian Government which appear to govern the position of the persons concerned.

Captain Duncan: In the interests of humanity, cannot something be done to allow these people to decide whether they wish to go back to Soviet territory or not?

Mr. Eden: Surely my hon. and gallant Friend will understand that these arrangements were made, with no responsibility on His Majesty's Government whatever, by the Agreement of 1940, which contains no provision for opting at all. I really do not see on what grounds His Majesty's Government have a locus standi in the matter.

Following are the translations:

DECREE OF THE PRESIDENCY OF THE SUPERIOR COUNCIL OF THE U.S.S.R.

By which the inhabitants of Bessarabia are restored in the rights of citizens of the U.S.S.R. those of Bucovina are receiving Soviet citizenship.

The official gazette of the Superior U.S.S.R. Council under No. 13 of the 23rd of March, 1941.

1. All persons who on the 7th November. 1917, were citizens of the former Russian Empire and who on 28th June, 194o, were located on Bessarabian territory together with their children, whether or not they were Rumanian citizens before that date are restored in their rights as Soviet citizens as from 28th June, 1940.
2. Persons among those permanently located in Bessarabia, who on the date of 7th November were of Russian citizenship, but who from 28th June, 1940, did not live on Bessarabian territory and who were temporarily beyond the U.S.S.R. frontiers must before 1st May, 1941, register at the Agencies and Consulates of the U.S.S.R. as Soviet citizens, reporting either personally or sending by post a special declaration together with their passport or papers in order to give proof of their identity and of the fact that they were inhabitants of Bessarabia.
3. The present Decree does not apply to persons mentioned in Article 1 and 2 of the present Decree, who up to 28th June, 1940, had acquired any other citizenship, neither to persons who had lost Soviet citizenship by Decree of the Superior Central Executive


Council of the Soviet Committee of the People for the Russian Federative Socialist Soviet Republic's Decree dated 15th December, 1921.
4. All persons who on 28th June, 1940, were located on the territory of Northern Bucovina, with the exception of foreigners and of persons who have been evacuated to Rumania after 28th June, 1940, and also excepting the persons who have lost the Soviet citizenship by Decree of the Superior Central Executive Council and of the People Soviet Committee of the Soviet Federative Socialist Russian Republics of 15th December, 1921, are recognized as Russian citizens as from 28th June, 1940.
5. Persons who have returned from Rumania to Bessarabia and Northern Bucovina after 28th June, 1940, according to the Agreement between Soviet and Rumania Authorities acquire the Soviet citizenship, as from the date of their return.

The President of the Superior Counsel of the U.S.S.R.

(SS) CALININ.

The Secretary of the Superior Counsel of the U.S.S.R.

(SS) A. GORCHIN.

(SS) COLONEL GUSEV.

Moscow, Kremlin.

8th March, 1941.

TRANSLATION OF RUMANIAN GOVERNMENT ORDER CONCERNING THE IDENTIFICATION OF SOVIET SUBJECTS IN RUMANIA.

The Minister for Justice communicates the following:
Supreme Presidents and Presidents of Courts of Appeal, Supreme Presidents and Presidents of Law Courts, County Public Prosecutors, Survey Inspectors and Prison Administrators are obliged on their own personal responsibility to communicate at once by telephone, telegraph or by written reports sent by special messengers, all the information necessary for the identification of Soviet subjects in the services they conduct.

The following are considered as Soviet subjects:

(a) Subjects of the former Russian Empire on 17th November, 1917, and their children who, on 28th, June, 1940, lived in Bessarabia and who did not evacuate to Rumania before 22nd June, 1941.
(b) All persons living in Northern Bucovina on 28th June, 1940, with the exception of foreign subjects and of those who evacuated before 22nd June, 1941, to Rumania.
(c) All those who after 28th June, 1940, and up to 22nd June, 1941, were repatriated from Rumania to Bessarabia or Northern Bucovina.
(d) All inhabitants, regardless of origin, who after 22nd June, 1941, came to Rumania from Bessarabia, Northern Bucovina or any other province of the U.S.S.R.

The attention of heads of law-courts is drawn to the fact that in drawing up reports, they should examine, within the meaning of the above, the situation with regard to their entire staff, magistrates, clerks, servants, etc., regard-

less as to whether they are officially appointed, delegated, or assigned in any other way, or non-budgetary.

The Minister for Justice requires this information, by 9th March, 1945.

YUGOSLAVIA (LAND REDISTRIBUTION)

Mr. Pickthorn: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his report shows if land redistribution has yet begun in federated Yugoslavia; and what is being done to meet the objections of each of the federated units, Serbia, Bosnia, Montenegro, etc., against admitting colonists from the others.

Mr. Eden: According to my information, land redistribution has not yet begun in Yugoslavia, though plans for it are under consideration. I understand that the Central Government is making every effort to meet the wishes of each of the federal units by the imposition of a tempo, rary ban on the return of colonists from other federal units to their former domiciles, until the question of land redistribution is settled.

Mr. Pickthorn: Does it follow that His Majesty's Government recognise this federation of Yugoslavia, which has happened in advance of any kind of general election, or plebiscite, or other test of public opinion?

Mr. Eden: I thought my hon. Friend asked me what was actually happening in Yugoslavia, to which I have given the answer. If he wants the further information, I shall be glad to answer a question on that point.

SYRIA AND LEBANON (GENDARMERIE EQUIPMENT)

Major-General Sir Edward Spears: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Syrian and Lebanese Governments have now been supplied, against repayment, with the automatic weapons and reconnaissance cars needed for the equipment of their gendarmeries.

Mr. Eden: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend on 24th January.

Sir E. Spears: My right hon. Friend said on 24th January that it was desirable that the States should be equipped,


can he say why they have not yet been allowed to purchase this equipment?

Mr. Eden: What I said was that the matter was being discussed by the French and Syrian Governments and that we were in friendly touch with both. That situation still continues, with a definite improvement I think, because relations between the Syrian and French Governments have, fortunately, improved.

GREECE (POLITICAL SITUATION)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Greece and on the events leading to the resignation of General Plastiras.

Mr. Eden: There have for some time been criticisms of General Plastiras' Government on the ground that they were no longer acting as a non-party administration. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the bulk of these criticisms have come from E.A.M. who have made many allegations that the Varkiza Agreement was not being observed. More recently Right Wing extremists have tried to discredit General Plastiras by publishing a letter which he wrote to the Greek Minister in Vichy in 1941. The Regent in these circumstances decided that in view of the criticism of the Plastiras Government it would be better to form an entirely nonparty administration which could govern the country until the plebiscite and elections can be held. It is certainly the hope of His Majesty's Government that the new Greek Government will act with impartiality during this difficult period and that they will refuse to be influenced by extremists of either side. As has been frequently stated, it is the aim and object of His Majesty's Government to ensure by a fair and freely held plebiscite that the Greek people shall have full freedom to choose their own form of Government.

Mr. Driberg: Can my right hon. Friend say whether, in general, the new Government is more or less monarchist in sympathy than 'the old one?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir, I certainly could not; I have no grounds on which to judge, but I understand the Prime Minister himself is not a man who has had any previous party affiliations. This Government will continue in office until

such time as elections can be held with a plebiscite.

Mr. Astor: Could the right hon. Gentleman say how soon it is expected they will be able to hold these elections and plebiscite, and so clear up the situation?

Mr. Eden: My hon. Friend will understand that it is not for me to decide that and, obviously, there are a great many technical difficulties. We would hope as soon as it is technically possible, but I cannot think that will be within three or four months.

Mr. Pritt: Has the right hon. Gentleman observed that one of the first acts of the new Government has been an attempt to destroy the Federation of Greek Maritime Unions, inside and outside Greece, and to replace it with a purely scab union?

Mr. Eden: That is the first I have heard of it; the hon. and learned Gentleman's telegraphic exchange must be very quick indeed.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the sustained interest in Greece of.His Majesty's Government, were they consulted about this change of Government?

Mr. Eden: It is not for His Majesty's Government to be consulted about changes of Government in a friendly territory, but we take a friendly interest and we think, on the whole, a not unbenevolent interest in the events in Greece.

Mr. Buchanan: In the interests of nonparty Government, could the right hon. Gentleman not send the Minister of Information out there?

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that the Royalists and pro-Fascists were responsible for getting rid of Plastiras, and that the new Admiral Prime Minister is a notorious monarchist and counter-revolutionary?

Mr. Eden: I do not think it is fair to say that, though I did observe that the Communists, who previously had no words bad enough for Plastiras, now regard him as something of a hero of their own.

GERMANY (OCCUPATION ZONES)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now give further particulars respecting the


German zones apportioned to Great Britain, the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A.; whether an agreed common policy will be operative in each zone; and what co-ordination is proposed in respect of prospective zoning of Berlin and Vienna.

Mr. Eden: As stated in the communiqué issued after the Conference in the Crimea, agreement was there reached on common policies and plans for enforcing the unconditional surrender terms which will be imposed on Germany. The adjustments to the zones in Germany and Berlin in order to provide for French participation are under discussion at the E.A.C. The arrangements in regard to Vienna are also under examination.

Mr. Sorensen: Does that mean that in Berlin there will be three separate zones with possibly four different administrative policies being pursued?

Mr. Eden: No different administrative policies. Originally, of course, the arrangement was reached for three zones. Now, owing to the French participation, certain adjustments are necessary and are being discussed, but it is under a common policy.

Mr. Sorensen: Will there be some kind of co-ordination?

Mr. Eden: Yes, indeed. This has been worked out jointly by the Allies:

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Tropical Kit Allowance (W.A.A.F.)

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he can now make a statement on increased tropical kit allowances.

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): With effect from 1st October, 1944, the tropical kit allowance for officers of the Women's Auxiliary Air Force is being increased from £10 to £22 10s. 0d.

Miss Ward: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that sum is absolutely inadequate, and will he make immediate representation to the Treasury about the shameful treatment of the women's Services as regards tropical allowances?

Sir A. Sinclair: There have been prolonged discussions by the Service Departments and the Treasury, and I think we have come to as good an arrangement as we can make.

W.A.A.F. (Iraq)

Mr. Pritt: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that W.A.A.F. personnel are being posted to a R.A.F. station in Iraq, particulars of which have been communicated to him; that this place is unfit for women, who are never allowed to live there in peace time, as men can only be kept fit there by sleeping every other night in an air-conditioned hospital; and whether he will see that no women are posted to this station.

Sir A. Sinclair: Two W.A A F. officers who volunteered for service in Iraq are at present serving at the station referred to and other W.A.A.F. officers who volunteer may be posted there in future. No members of the W.A.A.F. are, however, posted compulsorily to Iraq, and the proposal to send airwomen volunteers there is not being proceeded with at present. I am advised that the statements in the Question as to the living conditions at this station have no foundation in fact.

Charge (Court of Inquiry)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will set up a committee of inquiry, whose chairman shall be independent and at which evidence can be taken on oath, in the case of Miss Middleton, of which particulars have been sent him.

Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir. This case has been fully investigated by a properly constituted Service court of inquiry, at which evidence was taken on oath.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Miss Middleton, against whom this very serious charge was brought, claims she was not in court all the time and had no opportunity of cross-examining other witnesses? As this was a travesty of British justice, will the right hon. Gentleman order a new inquiry?

Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir, certainly not. It was a thoroughly competent and careful inquiry and this very serious charge was brought, not against Miss Middleton, but by her against a doctor employed in the Royal Air Force. It was most patiently inquired into, and I am convinced that the report of the court of inquiry is correct.

Sir W. Smithers: Was she allowed to cross-examine witnesses?

Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir, she herself was a witness. She was not the accused; the doctor was the accused.

Colonel Lyons: Can the Minister say whether Miss Middleton was present throughout the whole of the inquiry and had an opportunity of making any observations she thought fit, or conducting any cross-examination which she thought the evidence warranted?

Sir A. Sinclair: As a witness, of course she was not present throughout the whole of the inquiry. The accused was present throughout the whole of the inquiry.

Repatriated Personnel (Overseas Service)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the members of the R.A.F. repatriated from Greece, who were prisoners of war in that country and who are stationed at a place of which he has been informed, have been informed as to their future; and whether, in view of their harsh experiences, they will be kept in this country.

Sir A. Sinclair: Unless they volunteer to return to the Mediterranean area, officers, and airmen repatriated from Greece who have completed a substantial part of their overseas tour are being posted to the home establishment under the normal rules applicable to those who are tour-expired. Subject to medical fitness, the remainder are liable for further service overseas, other than in South-East Asia, but only for the period necessary to complete the unexpired part of their tour. All concerned have been notified of these arrangements.

Leading Aircraft-woman (Discharge)

Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson: asked the Secretary of State for Air why a leading aircraftwoman, particulars of whom have been supplied to him, was discharged from the W.A.A.F. on 8th May, 1944, as fit for selective employment in civil life when she was in fact an in-patient at a civilian hospital suffering from a disability which has now been accepted as aggravated by her service; and what steps are taken to ensure that W.A.A.F. personnel are not discharged to civil life until they are able to resume civil occupation or some other provision is available for them.

Sir A. Sinclair: I regret that this air-woman's discharge certificate was incor-

rectly endorsed, although I am advised by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions that this endorsement has not affected the amount of pension she has been awarded. In reply to the last part of the Question, I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War to the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) on 27th February.

Mr. Hutchinson: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the fact that this girl's certificate was wrongly endorsed has resulted in considerable delay in the issue of a pension to her; and will he agree that some steps are necessary to prevent a recurrence of this nature?

Sir A. Sinclair: Certainly. It is an unfortunate incident and, of course, it has been brought to the attention of those concerned.

AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS

Sir Ralph Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he is now in a position to make a full statement as to the cause of the loss of the aircraft on passage from this country to Malta on 31st January to 1st February, conveying officials of the War Office and Foreign Office to the preliminary conference held on 2nd February.

Sir A. Sinclair: I am awaiting the comments of the two Commanders-in-Chief concerned on the report of the court of inquiry, which only became available a few days ago. I will let my hon. Friend know when I am able to make a statement.

Sir R. Glyn: In view of the length of time which has elapsed since the accident, I propose to put a Question down this day week.

Mr. Bowles: Was this aircraft under Transport Command?

Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Silverman: Will the evidence at the inquiry be made available to the House?

Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir.

Mr. Silverman: Why not?

Sir Oliver Simmonds: Does not my right hon. Friend think that there would be


great advantage, in view of the criticisms which have been made in the House, if he were to publish this report?

Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir, I am sure there would be great disadvantage. I am sure that anyone who has had to do with inquiries in any of the three Services would know that it is of the utmost importance that officers should be able to speak freely, and even criticise their superior officers, and that any divulgence of the report or findings would make it more difficult to ascertain the truth.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We cannot debate, by Question and answer, what we discussed yesterday.

Mr. Bowles: asked the Secretary of State for Air the details of the accident which happened to a Transport Command Liberator at the Azores about three weeks ago when 16 or 18 people were killed.

Sir A. Sinclair: On 14th March a Liberator aircraft crashed shortly after take-off at the Azores, causing the deaths of the six members of the crew and the 12 passengers. The accident has been fully investigated, but the proceedings of the court of inquiry are not yet available in this country.

Mr. Bowles: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to have the report? If he will tell me that, I will follow the example of the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn), and put down another Question later.

Sir A. Sinclair: I will communicate with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Silverman: May I also ask whether in this case the evidence of the inquiry will be made available, and, if not, whether the right hon. Gentleman does not consider that in these cases where Transport Command is concerned mainly with the transport of civilian passengers, there ought not to be a public inquiry, exactly as there would be in the case of a railway accident?

Sir A. Sinclair: That is a question which I have answered already. I am sure that the object of the House is, as it is mine, to get at the truth and to encourage people to give their evidence without fear or favour. All that is greatly fostered by non-publication of the report.

Mr. Silverman: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that if he really wants to get at the truth a public inquiry will take him there more quickly than a private inquiry?

AERONAUTICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL

Mr. Bowles: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production whether he can now state the future constitution of the Aeronautical Research Committee.

The Minister of Aircraft Production (Sir Stafford Cripps): Yes, Sir, the Aeronautical Research Committee will, as from 1st April, be known as the Aeronautical Research Council. The Council will consist of 14 members of whom eight (including the Chairman) will be non-official members. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the terms of reference of the Council and the names of the members.

Sir O. Simmonds: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether this new Council is a Departmental Council, or an extra-Departmental Committee, as recommended by Sir Henry Tizard?

Sir S. Cripps: It consists of a majority of non-official members and, therefore, it is in that sense extra-Departmental.

Following are the terms of reference and names of the members:

1. To advise the Minister responsible on scientific problems relating to aeronautics.
2. To keep under review the progress of aeronautical research and to advise the Minister on the programme and the planning o' aeronautical research carried out for the Government of the United Kingdom.
3. From time to time, to make recommendations to the Minister on research which the Council considers it desirable to initiate.
4. When requested to do so, to tender advice upon any research carried out by or on behalf of the aeronautical industry.
5. Subject to the needs of security, to make the results of British research generally available, by the publication of research reports.
6. To advise upon aeronautical education in the United Kingdom in so far as it is relevant to research.
7. To maintain contact with similar bodies or institutions in the Dominions and foreign countries.
8. To make an annual report to the Minister.

Non-Official Members

Sir Melville Jones, C.B.E, A.F.C., M.A., F.R.S., F.R.Ae.S. (Chairman). Professor L. Bairstow, C.B,E., D.Sc., F.R.S., F.R.Ae.S.


Dr. D. R. Pye C.B., M.A., Sc.D., F.R.S., F.R.Ae.S. Sir William Stanier, M.I.Mech.E. Sir Geoffrey Taylor, M.A., F.R.S. Dr. H. Roxbee-Cox, F.R.Ae.S., D.I.C. Dr. S. Goldstein, M.A., F.R.S. Dr. A. G. Pugsley, O.B.E., A.M.I.Struct E., A.F.R.Ae.S.

Official

Director of Scientific Research, Admiralty. Representatives of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and of the National Physical Laboratory. Director-General of Scientific Research and Development, M. of Supply. Director of the Royal Aircraft Establishment. Director of Scientific Research, Ministry of Aircraft Production.

MEMBERS' CORRESPONDENCE, NORTHERN IRELAND (CENSORSHIP)

Dr. Little: asked the Minister of Information whether he will give instructions to the censorship that letters from British Ministers of State to Members of Parliament in Northern Ireland are not to be opened, but be exempted from the Censorship.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Thurtle): No, Sir, I do not think such an instruction is required. When the war in Europe ends, my hon. Friends in Northern Ireland will no longer be burdened by the censorship of their correspondence.

Dr. Little: Why should Members from Northern Ireland and Ministers of State be suspected by the Crown, and have some of their letters opened by the Censorship, and examined? I do not think that that should be, and I feel very strongly about it.

Mr. Thurtle: It is not a question of suspecting Ministers of State; it is a question of making a differentiation between Members of Parliament and ordinary citizens. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] There are very serious administrative difficulties about making that differentiation.

Sir Herbert Williams: Could the hon. Gentleman say which of his colleagues he distrusts—those who want to break away from the Government, or those who want to stay in it?

Mr. Thurtle: I have complete confidence in all.

Sir H. Williams: Then why censor their letters?

Mr. McGovern: If these letters to Members of Parliament are censored, and if the hon. Gentleman does not suspect Ministers of State, does he suspect the Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland?

Mr. Thurtle: I do not suspect anybody.

POST OFFICE (EUROPEAN COMMUNICATIONS)

Mr. Emmott: asked the Postmaster-General what are the present arrangements for postal, telegraphic and telephonic communication between this country, Bulgaria, Finland and Rumania, respectively?

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Robert Grimston): As the reply contains a number of details I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

Restricted postal services are in operation to Bulgaria, Finland and Rumania. The services are limited to letters not exceeding 2 oz. in weight, postcards, and packets containing printed papers, including newspapers and periodicals, and commercial papers up to the same limit of weight. Business and financial communications are restricted to those ascertaining facts and exchanging information. Newspapers, printed papers, etc., require a Censorship Permit. Correspondence may be registered but not insured. No air mail, money order or parcel post service is available except in the service to Finland to which an air mail service only is available.

The rates of postage are:

Bulgaria and Rumania.

Letters and letter packets not exceeding 1 oz. 3d.; 1–2 oz. 4½d.

Postcards 2d.

Printed and Commercial papers ½d for every 2 oz. (minimum of commercial papers 2½d.).

Finland. (Air mail service only).

Letters and letter packets (including printed and commercial papers) not exceeding 1 oz. 5d.; 1–2 oz. 8d.

Postcards 2½d.

Mails for Bulgaria and Rumania are despatched by surface route via Turkey. Mails for Finland are despatched by air via Sweden.

Public telegraph service has been restored with Bulgaria and Finland and will be restored with Rumania to-morrow, 12th April. Telegrams of a commercial and financial character must be confined to ascertaining facts and exchanging information.

The rates for telegraph service to all three countries are:

Ordinary 4½d. per word.
ELT 4s. 8½c1. for 25 words and 2¼d.
for each additional word.

The re-opening of telephone service with the three countries referred to is not yet practicable.

Squadron-Leader Donner: asked the Postmaster-General what are the postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications at present between this country and Yugoslavia.

Mr. Grimston: There is as yet no postal, telegraph or telephone service in operation between this country and Yugoslavia. I am endeavouring to arrange for postal and telegraph services to be opened as soon as possible, but the provision of telephone service is not yet practicable.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Hostel, Adwick

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Minister of Works what was the cost of erecting the hostel at Adwick, near Doncaster; for what purpose it was intended; and whether it has been occupied since it was built.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Duncan Sandys): The cost was about £95,000. With regard to the rest of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Minister of Fuel and Power on 20th March.

Mr. Bellenger: For what purpose is this very expensive building now being used?

Mr. Sandys: The Question, of course, referred to the past use, and that was fully explained by the Minister of Fuel and Power on 20th March. The building has now been released by the Ministry of Fuel and Power and has been handed over to the Ministry of Health, who are  ting evacuated children into the hostel. Those children will be coming in during the course of this month.

Mr. Montague: How many people can be accommodated in it?

Mr. Sandys: The hon. Gentleman had better put that question to the Minister of Health.

Sir Percy Harris: Is it not reasonable to assume that there will not be evacuees now that the bombing of London has stopped?

Mr. Sandys: It may be that I should have said refugee children.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Why do Government Departments resist suggestions which have been made that this hostel should be converted into accommodation for homeless persons who are actually being evicted now?

Mr. Speaker: That is another question.

Aluminium Houses

Mr. Higgs: asked the Minister of Works if the aluminium house designed by the Aircraft Industries Research Association will be available for inspection by Members of Parliament and the general public; and, if so, when and where.

Mr. Sandys: Only one prototype aluminium house has so far been constructed. This is at present undergoing transportation and erection tests. When these are completed in a few weeks time I propose to arrange for this prototype to be available for inspection by interested persons.

Mr. Higgs: Does the Minister intend to permit a large number of these houses to be manufactured before they have been properly tested and lived in?

Mr. Sandys: They must be manufactured before they can be lived in.

Sir H. Williams: As I was in one of these houses the other day and it had been completely erected, why cannot the public see it? Surely, there are no security grounds why this house, which is half a mile from the House, should not be seen?

Mr. Sandys: There is no secrecy about it, but there is only one prototype in existence and transportation tests are at present being carried out. These are very important, since the houses have to be taken long distances on lorries. As soon as these tests are completed the house will


be made accessible to those who want to see it. Personally, I am not so very keen on these exhibitions. The country wants houses to live in and not to look at.

Man-Power (Prisoners of War)

Colonel Lyons: asked the Minister of Works what decision has now been reached on the question of useful employment of prisoners of war on such urgent work as the preparation of housing sites, main drainage and sewerage extensions.

Mr. Sandys: The employment of prisoners of war on work of this kind is at present being considered, but I am not yet in a position to add anything to the statement I made on March 23rd.

Colonel Lyons: In view of the pressing need for work of this character to be completed, can the right hon. gentleman expedite a decision?

Mr. Sandys: Certainly

Building Labour and Material, Liverpool

The following Question stood on the Order Paper:

42. MR. LOGAN to ask the Minister of Works, in view of the priority rights of labour and material conceded to bombed areas, what action he has taken to provide labour and material for Liverpool.

Mr. Logan: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. In regard to the Question 42, I also put two other Questions, which now appear on the Order Paper as numbers 70 and 71 to the Minister of Health, to the Minister of Works. Could the Minister of Works reply to them?

Mr. Speaker: The Minister can only reply to the Question which is addressed to him.

Mr. Sandys: Except in a few cases such as London, where the needs are exceptional, labour has not for some time past been transferred to any part of the country for bomb damage repairs. Owing to heavy damage caused since last summer there is a shortage of certain building materials such as slates, plaster and plasterboard, but in the distribution of available supplies Liverpool has been given a fair share in common with other towns which have suffered heavy damage.

Mr. Logan: Is it possible for priority to be given to a seaport such as Liverpool,

which has suffered such great loss, when London has had its job done?

Mr. Sandys: I think I explained yesterday how much more there is still left to be done in London, but even leaving that out of account, Liverpool and all other towns which have been damaged are in fact receiving their fair share of the total supply. There is a shortage, but they are getting their fair share, having regard to their need in relation to the needs of other towns.

Building Priorities, Brackley

Mr. Manningham-Buller: asked the Minister of Works whether it is intended to proceed with the erection of a block of buildings in the borough of Brackley for use by the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Labour; and whether the erection of such buildings will receive priority over the erection of housing accommodation and the execution of repairs.

Mr. Sandys: No project of this kind is being undertaken.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Will my right hon. Friend inquire whether the journey of four officials to Brackley for this purpose was really necessary?

Repairs, Westminster (Private Builders)

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: asked the Minister of Works whether he is aware that a considerable amount of war damage repair work is being held up because the Westminster City Council, with the consent of the regional licensing officer, refuses to allow private builders to operate though they are in a position and anxious to do so; and whether he will cancel the power of local authorities to hold up work that is otherwise approved by the investigator.

Mr. Sandys: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the general statement I made on this subject yesterday.

Brigadier-General Brown: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the investigator told the client that he would recommend the work provided he gave it to the local authority to do? Is it not a very dangerous precedent to give powers to persons when the client is perfectly willing to pay for it himself?

Mr. Sandys: I do not know exactly what my hon. and gallant Friend means by "the investigator," but I explained our policy fully yesterday. If this work is


to be done quickly we must plan the job as a whole, tackling whole streets together. We cannot have builders leapfrogging from house to house and from street to street. We should never get the job done quickly that way.

Brigadier-General Brown: The thing could be done without any expense or holding up.

COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS, LONDON (REHABILITATION)

Sir George Broadbridge: asked the Minister of Works whether high priority will be given, when housing repairs are satisfied, for the rehabilitation of offices and commercial buildings in the City of London seriously damaged by enemy action, in consequence of which want of accommodation is acute.

Mr. Sandys: Shops, offices and commercial buildings have, wherever appropriate, received field dressing attention immediately after the incident. In many cases licences have been issued for some further work sufficient to enable the business to carry on. Subject to satisfying the most urgent needs for the repair of dwelling houses in London, it will I hope soon be possible to grant licences for this type of work rather more freely.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Unrationed Foods

Miss Rathbone: asked the Minister of Food if he will estimate in terms of expenditure, or however else practicable, the proportion of this country's food consumption, excluding, if possible, supplies in bulk to the Armed Forces, which consists of foods for which neither coupons nor points are required, such as bread, oatmeal and some other cereals, potatoes and other vegetables, fruit, fish, sausages and other meat stuffs, cocoa and coffee.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): I am having information prepared and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as it is available.

Miss Rathbone: Is the right hon. Gentleman yet convinced in any way that many articles of food in this country are not rationed and are in unlimited supply,

and in view of this, does he adhere to the extraordinary statement that was made by the Minister in October that we are as strictly rationed as any country in Europe?

Mr. Mabane: I had better answer the Question on the Order Paper first.

Jellies (Manufacture)

Dr. Little: asked the Minister of Food whether, owing to the constant demand for jellies by sick persons, invalids and delicate children, he will authorise the early resumption of their manufacture in order to meet a pressing need.

Mr. Mabane: No, Sir. I regret that the supply position does not yet permit a resumption of manufacture.

Dr. Little: As sugar is bring assigned for less necessary needs, will the Minister grant sufficient sugar to allow a certain percentage of jellies to be manufactured to meet a pressing public demand?

Mr. Mabane: There is every desire to resume manufacture as soon as the supply position permits.

"BRITISH WINE PORT TYPE"

Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister of Food whether his attention has been called to the widespread sale of red wine called "British Wine Port Type" manufactured by a chemical process and bottled by Santiago, Neuhofer, of 11, Brushfield Street, E.1; whether he is aware that the sale price is 15s. 6d. a bottle; that the retailers pass it off as Algerian wine; and whether he will state the name of the manufacturers and the date on which his Department passed it as fit for human consumption.

Mr. Mabane: Yes, Sir. I am aware that limited quantities of this product have been sold and inquiries are being made into the source of supply. As regards the last part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 7th March to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Leslie).

Mr. Stokes: Why is it impossible for the Minister to tell us the names of the manufacturers of this poisonous beverage?

Mr. Mabane: Because we do not know.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why this spurious beverage is still on sale?

Mr. Mabane: We are making inquiries to find out the source of supply. We have discovered the source of the first supply and that has been stopped.

Mr. Stokes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there was a prosecution in Bath police court, and that all the reports concerning it have been suppressed? Surely, when the stuff is sold the Ministry must know who made it and it must be done with the approval of the inspectors of the Ministry?

Mr. Mabane: I do not know what the hon Member means when he says that the reports have been suppressed, but action in the form of a prosecution is a matter for the local authorities, who operate the Food and Drugs Act.

Mr. Shinwell: Could we have a sample in the Library of the House?

PAPER SALVAGE

Mr. Graham White: asked the Ministeh of Supply if there has been any improvement in the rate of collection of paper salvage.

The Minister of Supply (Sir Andrew Duncan): Yes, Sir. There has recently been an appreciable improvement. More waste paper is, however, urgently needed; and I hope that, in spite of labour difficulties, still larger quantities will be obtained, with the aid of the drives that have been planned.

Mr. White: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any action to bring home to local authorities and the public the continuing and urgent need for the maximum collection?

Sir A. Duncan: We have regular conferences with local authorities on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Pacific Fleet (Welfare Arrangements)

Mr. Astor: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can make any statement regarding the welfare arrangements for the Pacific Fleet.

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): Yes, Sir. Considerable thought and effort are being devoted to the welfare arrangements of the British Pacific Fleet. The Australian Common' wealth Navy Board is undertaking the provision of amenities in the main Australian ports. In addition plans provide for canteens and recreation facilities both at the main R.N. Depot at Sydney and ashore in the forward area. Welfare Service Officers have been appointed to all shore bases in both Australia and the forward area as well as to the staffs of the Commander-in-Chief and the Flag Officer in charge of the fleet train. The Fleet is also to have an amenities ship which will contain a combined theatre and cinema, a canteen, a N.A.A.F.I. shop and restaurant, lending library, reading and writing rooms, as well as tailors, barbers and boot repair shops. The amenities planned ashore in the forward area will be similar but on a considerably larger scale. A number of amenities are also being provided in other ships of the fleet train. It is intended to instal brewery plants both in the amenities ship and ashore in the forward area. The supply of ice cream plant and soda-fountains are also receiving special attention in view of the climatic conditions. My hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that the shortage of labour and materials applies to this no less than to other theatres and a certain amount of time must necessarily elapse before the full provision we are making is realised.
I need hardly add that the citizens of the Dominions are offering a great deal of private entertainment and recreation for the officers and men of the Fleet. Various bodies, such as the Australian Comforts Fund, are providing Clubs for officers and men, and the Lord Mayor of Sydney is raising a fund to establish a recreation centre in the city. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing the gratitude of the Board of Admiralty for the liberal welcome which is being extended to the officers and men of the Fleet.
There are other aspects of the Admiralty's welfare arrangements which I should like to mention but as I have already spoken at some length, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, arrange for a fuller account to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Astor: While welcoming that admirable arrangement, may I ask whether there is a special officer and special arrangements to look after the Wrens who have been sent to that area?

Mr. Alexander: I think I can say "Yes" to that.

Colonel Greenwell: Have similar arrangements been undertaken for the Fleet operating in the Indian seas?

Mr. Alexander: Yes, Sir.

Following is the Statement:

In my oral reply I dealt with the provision of amenities in the theatre of operations but the House will be pleased to learn of the other side of the Admiralty's welfare schemes which seeks to alleviate the anxiety of the men of the Fleet concerning their families at home. In addition to their duties with regard to the provision of amenities generally these Welfare Service 'Officers are also available to give advice on the procedure to be adopted in solving men's private and domestic problems. A comprehensive family welfare organisation is in existence in this country to give help and advice to all naval ratings, their wives and families. Affiliated to this organisation is also a free legal aid scheme. The voluntary organisations who handle so many of the men's problems in private life and those of their families work in the closest liaison with the Welfare Services Department at the Admiralty. Financial aid is also available through the Royal Naval Benevolent Trust to provide relief in cases of distress and make provision for training for civil life. Though he is so far from home, every man in the Fleet is able to take advantage of this family welfare organisation if he has troubles at home about which he wishes to set his mind at rest. By arrangement with his Commanding Officer, a signal can be made to his home depot where the organisation will provide a reply in the shortest time about almost any subject which concerns either his own future or the present and future problems of his family. Furthermore, on urgent matters the concession telegram service is available to enable men to receive communications from their families and to send messages to them.

Where it appears to the authorities that a man's domestic problem is serious

enough to require his presence at home, arrangements are made to send him home by the quickest possible method, including air transport where this is available. Arrangements are now in force whereby mails for the Pacific Fleet are flown out to the station by air. By this means mails should reach main Fleet Bases with reasonable speed. It is hoped that it will also be possible to fly out every week a large supply of Sunday newspapers and the latest cinema news reels.

In implementing the re-allocation plan, Their Lordships intend to make every endeavour to ensure that those serving in the Pacific will be brought home in time for release in their proper turn. No man, therefore, should need to worry that the prospect of his future employment in civil life is prejudiced by his service in the Pacific Fleet.

Admiralty Civil Police (Pay)

Mr. Hugh Lawson: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the increases of pay announced in November, 1944, for Special and War Reserve Police, are being paid to full-time special constables in the Admiralty Civil Police.

Mr. Alexander: No, Sir. Admiralty Civil Police are not remunerated on the same basis as the Special and War Reserve Police. They are non-industrial civil servants eligible for Civil Service war bonus and in common with other civil servants they received an increase in bonus as from 1st November, 1944. In addition, their basic rates of pay have been increased, with effect from 1st December, 1944, by 4s. a week for constables after three years' service, with corresponding increases for higher ranks.

Tropical Kit Allowance (W.R.N.S.)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Arthur Heneage: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that the £10 allowance for tropical kit is inadequate for officers of the W.R.N.S.; what articles they are required to buy; and what articles are supplied as free issue.

Mr. Alexander: W. R. N. S. officers are required to purchase all articles of tropical kit except one pair of serge trousers. I am pleased to inform my hon. and gallant Friend that the tropical kit allowance for W.R.N.S. officers will be increased from £10 to £22 10s. with effect from 1st October, 1944.

Sir A. Heneage: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise how much this increase will be appreciated?

Minework (Volunteers)

Major C. S. Taylor: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether men serving with the R.N. are permitted to volunteer for work in the coalmines.

Mr. Alexander: Men who are serving temporarily in the Royal Navy and who have had recent experience as mineworkers may volunteer for work in the coal mines and are released for such work unless they belong to one of the exceptionally important branches such as aircrew. Men without previous coalmine experience may volunteer for release for training in colliery work if they joined the Navy on or before gist December, 1940, and were born in 1910 or later: release in this category depends on the man's branch and the rating he holds.

Major Taylor: When there are a number who wish to join the Royal Navy but are sent down as Bevin boys into the mines, is it not a pity that those who wish to volunteer for the mines from the Navy, should not be allowed to do so?

Mr. Speaker: That is an argument and not a question.

R.N.V.R. Officers (Depot Ships)

Sir Alfred Beit: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many R.N.V.R. officers are at present posted to H.M.S. "Victory" and other ships, not to join.

Mr. Alexander: This figure fluctuates from day to day but approximately 650 R.N.V.R. officers are at any one time appointed to depot ships not to join. These appointments are given when officers are sick, on foreign or home service or compassionate leave, undergoing certain courses or are earmarked for appointments. In addition when requirements permit, a small margin of officers is maintained to meet unforeseen commitments and to provide replacements for casualties and sickness.

Sir A. Beit: Is it not a fact that a proportion of these officers are unemployed, and could not the right hon. Gentleman see his way to discharge those for whom he has no further use?

Mr. Alexander: That is not so. Where you have tens of thousands of officers in

the Service being moved about from post to post and from theatre to theatre, you must have a pool attached to the depot ship. Some may be there a little longer than others but we keep the number as low as possible.

Sir A. Beit: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what is the average period?

Mr. Alexander: Not without notice.

Mr. Montague: Can non-technical Members be told what the Question is about?

Mr. Alexander: The depot ships have their own regular staffs. Those who are sent there "not to join" are those who await drafting elsewhere.

Medical Examinations

Mr. Shinwell: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that Leading Seaman E. Bassett, now in M Ward, Upper Southern Hospital, Dartford, was given a medical examination at R.N. Barracks, Chatham, several weeks ago and was certified fit for service abroad though he protested that he was seriously ill; that he has now had a further examination which disclosed that he was suffering from tuberculosis; and whether he has any explanation to offer for this variation in the medical examinations.

Mr. Alexander: No inconsistency in the assessment of medical category for service occurred in this case. The symptoms of which Bassett complained did not suggest pulmonary tuberculosis. He was examined by various specialists who reported that so far as they were concerned and subject to confirmation they saw no reason why he should not go to sea. On examination of his chest by X-rays, which took place about ten days later, pulmonary tuberculosis was suspected, although previous films had been negative: this diagnosis has now been confirmed.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not the case that this seaman demanded a further examination because he was about to proceed to the Pacific zone, and that it was only after protest by his father and on representations made by me that this further examination took place? Will my right hon. Friend, in view of complaints, make inquiries about the medical examinations being conducted at the Royal Naval Barracks? It seems that there is something wrong.

Mr. Alexander: Representations were made, as my hon. Friend states, a second time which led to a re-examination, but, in justice to the medical men concerned, I must say that, while there had been a previous X-ray film which did not show the complications which afterwards appeared, as soon as they were discovered he was sent to hospital for further special testing. None of the man's complaints had led them to look specially for pulmonary tuberculosis. They had been looking for symptoms that the man had complained of. May I say in general that we have on the whole very generous testimony to the medical officers? I had a letter this morning from a parent to say that he and his wife would never cease to be grateful for the service of the naval medical officer to their boy who had developed tuberculosis.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: In view of the fact that mass radiography is now employed in industrial establishments, can my right hon. Friend say why it is not now used in the Navy?

Mr. Alexander: I would like to have notice as to details of what is done about that in the Navy.

Mr. Shinwell: While making no general accusations against the medical personnel, may I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the suggestion I made to him that he should inquire into the whole subject?

Mr. Alexander: I am making special inquiries as to how this case arose, and, incidentally, I shall be asking the very questions my hon. Friend has in mind.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Why is not a reexamination made the practice in order to find out whether there is tuberculosis?

Mr. Alexander: It is the practice in connection with the general medical examination of our sailors, but this case arose out of particular complaints of the man.

Mr. Messer: As my right hon. Friend indicated that the medical officers in charge of this case were relying only on X-rays, may I ask if it is not a fact that tests are always taken before diagnosis where tuberculosis is suspected?

Mr. Alexander: I did not indicate that we were relying only on X-rays.

Dr. Morgan: Will my, right hon. Friend consider the desirability of publishing in

his answers the names of the specialists who did the examination?

Private Sailing (Southampton Water and Solent)

Dr. Russell Thomas: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he has now reached a decision in regard to allowing private individuals to sail their boats on Southampton Water and the Solent.

Mr. Alexander: Yes, Sir. Private sailing and fishing is now allowed in certain parts of Southampton Water and the adjacent Solent-Spithead area provided that permits are first obtained from the local naval authorities.

W.R.N.S. (Naval Police)

Dr. Russell Thomas: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether members of the W.R.N.S. are liable to be stopped and criticised by naval police and patrols at railway stations and other places.

Mr. Alexander: Yes, Sir.

Dr. Thomas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these police stop and criticise the dress of members of the W.R.N.S. in a hectoring and bullying manner, and will he see that this practice, which is much resented, is modified so that these young girls are not frightened in this way?

Mr. Alexander: If there were any particular incident of that kind, I should make immediate inquiries, but my information is that they are only very rarely stopped in certain areas where dress is particular. In those areas we have detailed special chief petty officers who have been under training in the Provost Marshal's Department.

Sir H. Williams: By what authority do the naval police interrogate people who are not under naval discipline and cannot be court martialled?

Mr. Alexander: They may not be subject to naval discipline, but they are subject to the regulations and rules of W.R.N.S., and we can take what steps we wish to see that they conform to the regulations.

Commander Agnew: Would it not be better to have some W.R.N.S. police women on the lines of the other Services?

Mr. Alexander: I have no doubt that the W.R.N.S. officers do a great deal of the necessary correction.

TRINIDAD (DETAINEE)

Dr. Morgan: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what grounds Uriah Butler has been kept under detention without trial or charge in Trinidad for the last four and a half years and is still being detained; and whether his release or judicial trial has been recently considered.

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Emrys-Evans): I have been asked to reply. Uriah Butler was detained under Section 16 of the Trinidad Defence Regulations in order to prevent his acting in any manner prejudicial to the public safety or defence. It has now been decided to release him from detention.

Dr. Morgan: Will the Minister really see that in these distant Colonies British subjects are not kept two and a half years without trial?

JAMAICA (DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL SERVICES)

Dr. Morgan: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the services of Dr. Thomas John Hallinan, C.B.E., the present Director of Medical Services in Jamaica, who has reached the retiring age, are being extended; and whether similar extensions will be granted to other medical officers in the Colonial Medical Service.

Mr. Emrys-Evans: Dr. Hallinan will not reach the age of bo until January, 1946, and I understand from the Governor that he will then retire. The last part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.

Dr. Morgan: Is the Minister aware that many Colonial officers, instead of being kept in the Service, are now serving as officers of the Ministry of Pensions?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: That is another question.

WEST INDIES (ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT)

Dr. Morgan: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any decision has yet been reached as to the publication as a Government Paper of the full Report of the Royal Commission to the West Indies, 1938–39; and if he will expedite the release of this document.

Mr. Emrys-Evans: His Majesty's Government have decided that this Report should be published and Colonial Govern-

ments were asked some little time ago to estimate minimum local requirements of copies with a view to simultaneous release here and in the West Indies. The date of publication will be fixed after the copies required have reached the West Indies.

CYPRUS (GREEK RELIEF FUND)

Mr. Pritt: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Government of Cyprus has prevented the municipalities of Limassol and Famagusta from subscribing £500 each to the Greek Relief Fund; and whether, seeing that similar subscriptions have always been sanctioned in the past, he will procure that the Government permits them to be paid.

Mr. Emrys-Evans: The Municipal Corporation Law in Cyprus provides that all municipal revenue must be exclusively devoted to municipal purposes within municipal limits. It is not, therefore, possible to sanction grants of this nature. It is the case that in the past a few small grants have, by inadvertence, been made by municipal councils for charitable purposes outside these limits. But such an oversight does not justify the continuance of a practice contrary.to the law.

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL

In pursuance of Standing Order No. 80 (4):

Mr. SPEAKER has nominated Dr. Haden Guest, M.C., a Member of the Chairmen's Panel, in the room of William Foster, Esquire, resigned.'

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Eden.]

Orders of the Day — REQUISITIONED LAND AND WAR WORKS [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise the acquisition of certain land used or dealt with for war purposes and to make other provision as to such land, to remove doubts as to the powers of certain Ministers to acquire land under the Defence Act, 1842; to amend certain of the enactments relating to compensation in respect of land, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment or repayment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) of the remuneration and allowances of the members, officers and servants of any Commission set up under the said Act of the present Session and any expenses incurred by any such Commission with the approval of the Treasury;
(b) of, or of contributions in respect of,—

(i) the cost of doing any work required to be done by any order made under the said Act of the present Session authorising the stopping up or diversion of a highway;
(ii) any increased expenditure to be incurred which is ascribable to the doing of any such work or to the provision or improvement, before the making of the order, of any highway as a substitute for any highway stopped up under any such order; or
(iii) any compensation paid by the highway authority in respect of restrictions imposed under Section one or Section two of the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935, as respects any highway stopped up or diverted under any such order;

(c) of any expenses incurred under or by virtue of the said Act of the present Session by any Minister (except so far as they are payable out of the Road Fund under any other Act);
(d) of any compensation payable under or by virtue of the said Act of the present Session by any Minister;
(e) of any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in any compensation payable by the Crown under any other Act; and
(f) of any such increase in the sums payable into the Road Fund out of moneys provided by Parliament as is attributable to the passing of the said Act of the present Session;


and the payment into the Exchequer of any sum paid under the said Act of the present Session to any Minister.

Resolution agreed to.

REQUISITIONED LAND AND WAR WORKS BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE 1.—(The War Works Commission.)

3.20 p.m.

The Chairman: I propose, in calling the first Amendment, to suggest that it may be for the convenience of the Committee if all the Amendments relating to the appointment of the Commission be discussed at the same time.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I beg to move, in page 1, line II, after "Commission)," insert:
to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor and.
Perhaps I might first of all read to the Committee the Sub-section as we wish to amend it. It would read:
For the purpose of reporting on the matters and deciding the questions mentioned in the subsequent provisions of this Act, there shall be a Commission, to be called the War Works Commission (in this Act referred to as 'the Commission'), to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor and consisting of a chairman and such number of members (not being less than five) as the Lord Chancellor may think expedient and shall include members chosen for their knowledge and experiencce of agriculture, architecture, industry, town and country planning and the conduct of legal proceedings.
The reasons for the Amendment were given in some detail during the Second Reading Debate and I will not recapitulate them now. The Committee is, no doubt, broadly familiar with them. In chief, we want the Commission to be independent. We want to give it a quasi-judicial character and we want above all to ensure that it shall not be an instrument of the Executive. Winding up the Second Reading Debate, the Attorney-General said that a Treasury Commission would be independent and he cited the War Damage Commission as an example. The Treasury deals with finance and the War Damage Commission also deals with finance, but the Commission now proposed will have to deal with conflicting claims arising from


many widespread interests. It will have to reconcile agriculture with industry, to see that amenities are preserved and that planning considerations have their proper place. These are considerations which arouse passions, and we think that the Lord Chancellor is the only Minister capable of cooling those passions. Again, the Attorney-General said that if we did not like the composition and methods of working of the Treasury Commission we could shoot at the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That, he said, was the advantage of the Treasury Commission; but now we observe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put down an Amendment of his own to invite His Majesty to appoint the Commission. My hon. Friends and I do not like that at all. If something goes wrong, we cannot shoot at His Majesty. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] We do not want to shoot at His Majesty. On the contrary, we think -that the Lord Chancellor is our man. If anything goes wrong with the Commission, we can then shoot perfectly well at the Attorney-General.
Perhaps I might say a brief word about another Amendment, in the name of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope), in page 1, line 11, leave out from "chairman," to end of Sub-section, and insert:
to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor and four other Members, of whom one shall be appointed by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, one by the Board of Trade, one by the Treasury, and one by the Minister of Town and Country Planning.
We think it a pity to rule that the Commission should have five and not more than five members. The proposed basis of appointment of the Commission is too rigid. The Lord Chancellor should have freedom of choice of members of the Commission, provided that the source from which they come is laid down. The effect of, the Amendment is to set up a Commission which, though it is balanced in interests, may very well be unbalanced in personalities. We think that so many Ministerial cooks may well provide a very indigestible meal and that it is far better that the Lord Chancellor should order the whole repast himself.

Mr. Benson: Frankly, I do not like the proposal made by the Lord Chancellor any better than does the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, but,

also frankly, I do not see any reason why we should change from the original proposal in the Bill that the Commission should be appointed by the Treasury. It is a Treasury Bill and a very narrow one. Its main purpose is to see that the value of any works which have been built during the war on requisitioned land inures to the State, or, if damage has been done to land by putting enormous works upon it and if and when the land reverts to the landowner, to see that he cannot make excessive claims against the Treasury for putting the land back. That is the major effect of the Bill. It is essentially a matter for Treasury decision. To suggest that the Treasury are incapable of dealing with what is essentially an assessment of values is as foolish as to suggest that they would be incapable of appointing the Board of Inland Revenue. It has nothing to do with the Chancellor of the Exchequer as such.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): The Board of Inland Revenue are appointed by the King.

Mr. Benson: Are they? In that case, that is the best argument I have heard for the Chancellor's own Amendment. I suggest that the Chancellor's first thought was a good thought. This is a Treasury matter. His Amendment represents a running away from the hungry hordes behind him. Let him fight for the Treasury. It will be a bad day when the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to come down to the House of Commons and apologise for the activities of the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman has said that this is a good Bill; it is a good Bill, and I commend it to my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee, on one piece of evidence only, that the Tory Party have put down 40 pages of Amendments. I hope that the Chancellor will resist the Amendment and I hope that he will withdraw his own Amendment. This is a Treasury Bill and there is no reason why Treasury control should be weakened.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken seems to have conceded, in his efforts to support the Chancellor's original draft, the case for making an alteration in the Bill. It was perfectly apparent that the basis of his argument was that if we have any Commission at all, it should be a facade, to appear to do justice between


individuals—it may be small individuals—and the State, while really being a Commission which is subject to the control and direction of the Treasury, this being a Treasury Bill.

Mr. Benson: It is.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am not prepared to acquiesce in any form of deception of that sort and I am sure that the Chancellor would not welcome support for his proposals on that particular ground. I am surprised, when there is an Amendment on the Order Paper, moved by the Noble Lord, suggesting that the appointment should be made by somebody independent of the Treasury, which has a great financial interest in the Bill, that the Chancellor should put down an Amendment proposing that the appointment should be made by His Majesty. I hope that when we come to deal with this matter my right hon. Friend will explain why he regards the Lord Chancellor as an unsuitable person to have the selection, or, alternatively, why he regards the Lord Chancellor as incapable of making a proper selection. I should have thought the Lord Chancellor, who has to appoint people to all sorts of bodies throughout the country, would do the job exceedingly well. What is more, it could not be said then that there had been any influence by the Treasury upon the selection of people to fulfil the duties of the Commission. If the Chancellor's Amendment is accepted, His Majesty will have to act on the advice of some Members of the Government. It means that the Treasury can have—I do not say they will have—a considerable amount of influence upon the question of who is to be appointed to the Commission. That is what I am out to stop, if I can, and that is why I put down the Amendment in my name. If any alteration is made, it should be by the insertion, after the Words "His Majesty," of the words, "on the advice of the Lord Chancellor."

3.30 p.m.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: The Noble Lord the mover of this Amendment seemed to object to the Amendment standing in the names of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope), some other of my hon. Friends and myself, because we mentioned that we wanted other interests besides the Treasury interests represented on this Commission. He mentioned those other interests himself, and I can assure him that as far as I am

concerned I think his Amendment would carry out what we want as much as would our Amendment. What we object to, as he has stated, is that this Commission shall be entirely in the hands of the Treasury. The Treasury take only the financial point of view, and in these important matters which have to be decided there are many other points of view. There is not only town planning, but agriculture and forestry and we think tee Commission should be representative of all those interests rather than of the money interests alone.
I could quote many instances to illustrate my point. I am a local Commissioner of Taxes and we have cases brought before us complaining of this or that assessment. It is impossible for the local Inspector of Taxes to judge otherwise than from the financial point of view, and it is our job to see that the other considerations are taken into account. I have no complaint about the representation of the local Inspector of Taxes so long as account is taken of other considerations. We want the Commission to be established in the same way, not only from the point of view of finance but also from the point of view of other interests which will be seriously affected. It is not only a Treasury matter. I do not know if the Amendment of my hon. Friend who has just spoken would carry out our object of getting the Commission away from the Treasury. The whole of our object is to get a Commission representative of wide interests outside the Treasury. I would like the Chancellor to explain the difference between the Treasury forming the Commission and the Crown forming the Commission, as it does now in the case of the Forestry Commission. I do not know why the Lord Chancellor is not regarded as the most suitable person to take the wide view of all these matters.

Mr. Key: I do not think we could possibly agree that this is merely a Treasury matter of settling compensation here or there. It is very often a question of the perpetuation of works, which in a great number of cases have really been violations of local town planning arrangements, and which would he very detrimental to the proper development of various areas of the country. Because of that I feel that the composition of this Commission should be such as really to give protection to local development and local authorities. If the appoint-


ment of the Commission rested only with the Treasury, the tendency would be for finance to have an overwhelming power in the matter. In an Amendment which I and some of my hon. Friends have put down we suggest substituting for the Treasury the Minister of Town and Country Planning, but an arrangement which would ensure that the interests of town and country planning were represented on the Commission would be such as to meet the need which we feel is essential in this matter.

Mr. Colegate: I cannot help thinking that it would be of great assistance to the Committee if the Chancellor would explain at an early stage what he means by his Amendment that the Commission should he appointed by His Majesty. Does that mean "appointed by His Majesty by Order in Council," which is the term the Chancellor himself uses in a later Amendment, because that makes a great deal of difference? I agree with the last speaker that so far from this being a purely Treasury matter this Clause is the most important one in the Bill. This is where the ordinary public, including the local authorities, are given protection, if necessary, against the Treasury and the Executive. When the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) spoke I doubted if he had read the Bill. His complaint of those of us who have done so, and have worked at the Bill and put down Amendments, is really a most ridiculous statement. Of course we have put down Amendments. If the Chancellor will explain exactly what he means by his Amendment, most of us would be very quickly able to make up our minds.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): I feel it is now incumbent upon me to say a few words about the Amendment which stands in my name, in page 1, line 12, leave out "the Treasury" and insert "His Majesty." On the Second Reading of this Bill the opinion was expressed in various quarters of the House that a Commission appointed by the Treasury would almost inevitably be a Treasury-minded body, that it would act and be expected to act—I am paraphrasing—with a definite bias in favour of the Treasury. I said at the time that I do not for a moment accept that view. The functions of the Treasury, as the main central Department of Government,

range very wide, and go far outside the sphere of finance. Nor is this Bill, despite what has been said by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson), for example, primarily a Measure designed to save money for the Exchequer. In promoting this Bill the Treasury are actiing in their capacity as a central Department of Government, responsible to a large extent for the machinery of Government. It seemed most natural to those who were responsible for the framing of the Bill that this Commission should be appointed by the Treasury. The view has been expressed by my Noble Friend the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) that the Commission ought to be a quasi-judicial body—I dare say he would prefer not too much emphasis on "quasi"—that it should be an independent body, and should not be a mere instrument of the Executive. I absolutely agree with all that. What is the purpose of setting up such a body as this? It is to deal with matters involving a conflict of interest, to give an assurance to everybody that in this difficult and complicated process of clearing up our affairs after the war, interests of all kinds, public and private, shall have fair treatment.
I come to the reasons for the Amendment in regard to that appointment of the Commission. I do not think there is any ground for apprehension in the mind of any well-informed person—and I would include, very respectfully, all hon. Members in that category—about the result of an appointment by the Treasury; but we want to give confidence not merely in this House but everywhere, and there might be some ill-instructed persons who would think a Treasury Commission would have, as I said at the beginning, a Treasury bias. What is the alternative? Various suggestions have been made, including the appointment of the Commission by the Lord Chancellor. Not for one moment would I suggest that the Lord Chancellor was unqualified or an unsuitable authority to be entrusted with these particular functions. But when we are dealing with the structure and the machine of Government, we have to consider what is most appropriate, what fits in best with our general understanding of the distribution of responsibilities. The Lord Chancellor is unquestionably the best authority to deal with matters involving the selection of persons of legal know-


ledge and experience, and he has around him many people who are very well qualified to assist him in the discharge of a function of that sort. But when we come to the selection of persons who are not to be appointed, for the most part, because of legal knowledge—unquestionably many of them will not be practising lawyers—but of people who will be Selected for their experience and standing, who will collectively give confidence to the public that the business which is coming before the Commission will be competently transacted, with reasonable promptitude, and with understanding, then the Lord Chancellor and I are in absolute agreement that that is not the sort of function which should specially be selected as a responsibility to be placed upon the shoulders of the Lord Chancellor.
Appointment by the Crown in the manner suggested has, it seems to me, this great advantage, that of course His Majesty will act constitutionally on Ministerial advice, and the Commission will be seen to be the instrument of public, Government and Parliament, set up without any particular leaning towards one Departmental interest rather than another. In practice the appointment will be made on the advice of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. That is how such things are done, and when the Commission has come into being it would have no kind of Departmental allegiance. I and my colleagues were very anxious that the purpose which the Government have in mind in setting up this Commission, which I explained on Second Reading, should be as clear as possible to the minds of all who are interested in this matter. That is the reason, and perhaps I have said enough to explain it, why we have suggested, in view of the doubts and misgivings that have been expressed here, appointment by the Crown.

Mr. Silverman: I am not quite sure how this works. If the Chancellor's suggestion were acceptable to the Committee, who, in fact, would make these appointments?

Sir J. Anderson: I have just said that His Majesty would act upon advice and that in a case of this kind the advice would be that of the Prime Minister of the day. That is how the appointment would be made. There are many precedents for that.
I was going on to deal with a rather different aspect, which has been raised by previous speakers, who have suggested that an attempt should be made, in the setting up of the Commission, to find people who were specially qualifwd to deal with particular aspects—agriculture, planning, forestry, whatever it might be, and that it should be expressed in the wording of the Statute. I suggest to the Committee that that would be a very great mistake. We do not want people who regard themselves, and will be regarded as, partisans. Undoubtedly we want so to constitute the Commission that its members will be generally regarded as competent to form a judgment on issues affecting various kinds of interests—amenity, orderly planning, agriculture, whatever it might be. We want the Commission to act as a whole. We provide incidentally that the Commission should be able to act notwithstanding a vacancy in its numbers. What would the position be if the members were chosen as representing particular interests? One vacancy might be thought to invalidate the findings of the Commission, or at any rate to undermine its authority. In later Amendments we shall endeavour to secure the insertion of words to make it absolutely clear that the Commission has to consider every sort of interest that may be affected, and to hold the balance fairly as between one interest and another. That was very much in our minds-in the suggestions we made in regard to the constitution and the appointment of the Commission.
3.45 p.m.
A further question which was raised was, What do we mean by appointment by "His Majesty"? Is it appointment by Order in Council, and why do we say later in the Bill that certain action may be taken by His Majesty by Order in Council and do not say here that the appointment has to be by Order in Council? The precedents as regards the form of words used in the case of appointments by His Majesty point in all directions. In some cases the statement is simply that the appointment is made by His Majesty, and everyone knows, what that means. In some cases the appointment is under the Sign Manual, and in yet other cases by Order in Council. The reason for putting in "Order in Council" when it comes to winding up the Commission is that that is a formal act, not con-


cerned merely with putting an end to the appointment of particular individuals but bringing to an end the operations contemplated by the Bill as a whole. The more formal step of an Order in Council provides an instrument, which might be quoted in the courts, bringing the operations connected with the work of the Commission formally to an end. I think I have explained why the Government make this proposal, and I hope that on further consideration hon. Members will agree that my Amendment is well conceived and that it will help to give confidence to those who may he affected by the operations of the Bill and should be accepted by the Committee.

Mr. Turton: I feel very much dissatisfied with the latter part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech. I was moved when he said he did not wish this Commission to be weighed down by any Departmental interest, and that the appointment should be made on the advice of the Prime Minister, but if that is the case surely here is an opportunity to put it in the Bill and thus to make it clear that it is on the advice of the Prime Minister or the Privy Council that this appointment will be made. I have read what I could about the precedents, and it is clear that the King can only act by the Great Seal in four ways: by fiat, by Order in Council, by Sign Manual Warrant or by Sign Manual Warrant preceded by an Order in Council. In the case of the Forestry Commission and the Unemployment Assistance Board the appointments were made by Sign Manual Warrant. If the Chancellor wishes this appointment to be made in the same way let that be expressed in the Bill. If we put nothing in we leave a charming and delightful vagueness.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself is the King's Minister. If he as Chancellor makes an appointment it is an appointment by His Majesty. Indeed, there is no Minister of the Crown who is not, when he does an executive act, executing something on behalf of His Majesty, and I suggest that if we prefer the method of appointment by His Majesty by Order in Council to appointments by the Lord Chancellor—and I must say the first part of the Chancellor's speech persuaded me—we should at least

say formally that this Commission is to be appointed by His Majesty by Order in Council. Why, when we have taken care in Clause 3 to make the disbandment of the Commission formal, should we not also see that due formality is observed over the even more important act of appointing the Commission? I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider this matter. As hon. Members have said it is most vital to the Bill that an independent Commission should be appointed. If we can have that safeguard it will help us in the consideration of the other Clauses. I ask that we have the appointment made by Order in Council.

Mr. Silverman: I do not feel very strongly in favour of either the Amendment moved from the back benches or the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think it is important that we should know exactly what we are doing and appreciate what differences there are between the proposals I understand the original objection was that since the Treasury have an interest in this matter they ought not to control the Commission. Whether that was a sound objection or not I do not know. The Commission will perform certain judicial functions. A great many judicial or quasi-judicial functions are performed by officials under the control of the Treasury—the district valuers, the Income Tax Central Commissioners, and a great many others. It may not be a wholly satisfactory system, but it exists. If the Chancellor thinks, as he said on Second Reading, that there was not any real substance in the objection I could well follow that argument, but in that case he ought to have stuck to his guns. If there was nothing in the objection he ought not to have made a concession. If, on the other hand, he thought a concession ought to be made, either because there was substance in the grievance or because it might appear that there was substance in it, then he ought to have made a real concession and not an imaginary or illusory one.
Unless I have gravely misunderstood the matter his concession means nothing whatever. Instead of the Commission being appointed by the Treasury it will be appointed by the Prime Minister. He is the First Lord of the Treasury. I am not greatly interested in whether it is done by Order in Council, or under the


Great Seal, or however it is done. The important point is whether the Commission are to be independently appointed. It is all very well to say that the Treasury will not do it, but that the First Lord of the Treasury, the Prime Minister, will. Who is to advise the Prime Minister? He will not put a lot of names in a hat, [An HON. MEMBER: "Which hat?"] Someone will suggest to him that such and such persons are suitable. No doubt he will have a right of veto. He will be able to look at a name and say: "I do not like him; can't you suggest somebody else?" It seems to me that the people who will advise the First Lord of the Treasury about what appointments he shall make will be the Treasury, so if the Chancellor's Amendment is accepted we shall have changed nothing whatever.
An hon. Member near me said just now that when he found 40 pages of Amendments to a Bill all put down by Tories that was conclusive evidence that it was a good Bill. I am not prepared to go so far as that; it may be prima facie evidence but it is not conclusive evidence. The point is that there are 40 pages of Amendments and it will take a long time to get through them, and if we are to waste a lot of time in debating the difference between propositions which have no substantial difference it is playing with the Committee. If the Government want to stick to their original intentions let them say so and take their courage in both hands. If they want to make a change then let them make a change and tell us exactly what the change is and how it will work. I come into the Committee and find that on the first Amendment in 40 pages of Amendments we are devoting a long time to defending a Purely imaginary concession which is no substantial concession at all.

Major Sir George Davies: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) has missed the real point. He speaks of 40 pages of Amendments and of wasting time, but it has already been pointed out that this question is really vital to the whole Bill. It is the most important Amendment there is.

Mr. Silverman: I was not suggesting that the Amendment was a waste of time, I agree that it is important, but I say that it was a waste of time to come forward with an imaginary concession when not prepared to make a real one.

Sir G. Davies: If the hon. Member would only let me get on with my speech, as I allowed him to go on with his, perhaps we should waste less time. This is an Amendment of fundamental importance because it concerns the atmosphere in which this Measure will be administered, and whether it gains the confidence not only of this House but of the community outside. As one who took part in the Second Reading Debate I want to thank the Chancellor for the real concession he has made to the opinions then expressed. Unlike the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne I consider it is a very real concession. I cannot fully share the views expressed by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) because this is the way the matter commends itself to me. The Chancellor has suggested the words "His Majesty." What does that mean? It means His Majesty on the advice of his Ministers, and the spokesman is obviously the Prime Minister. To that extent it is, one may say, an appointment by the Prime Minister, but it is not merely so. I myself have always thought that even if we left it to the Treasury we could rely upon those who administer that Department to realise their responsibility in this matter and probably to appoint those in whom we would have confidence.
Furthermore, I agree with what the Chancellor has said about the undesirability of pinning down the personnel of this Commission to representatives of certain interests such as those suggested in the Amendment of my right hon. and gallant friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope). In a later Amendment the Chancellor indicates the direction in which the Commission shall act without pinning them down to principles or to representing definite interests. I think myself that is wise and achieves the object we have in view, I do not believe the Chancellor's Amendment is an unreal Amendment. I do not necessarily say that it is going to achieve a different Commission from what was in the minds of the Government when they produced the Bill, but it will bring a great deal more assurance to most Members of this House and to the community outside, whether they are personally interested or not. The fact is that all these enormous interests are to have fair consideration, and that when the final decisions are reached the country may be satisfied that the very best efforts have


been made to reach a fair conclusion. For those reasons, I support the attitude of the Chancellor.

4.0 p.m.

Sir Ernest Shepperson: I fully agree that this is the most important Clause in the Bill. Certain Ministers are being given power to acquire the land of this country. A Commission is to be set up, which will hear the objections to that acquisition. But that Commission will be merely an advisory body to the Minister. I desire, first, that the Commission shall represent the various interests, agricultural, town and country planning, and so on; and, at the same time, that it shall be not merely an advisory body, but an executive body. That is the principle underlying many of the Amendments to which I have put my name. I understand from the Chancellor that his Amendment will meet those points of view: that it will enable the Commission to be appointed by His Majesty and to represent the various interests; and also that a later Amendment will give the Commission executive power to deal with our grievances. If that is so, the Chancellor has more or less met our objections.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am not quite sure whether the Amendment in the names of my hon. Friends and myself—to insert:
after consultation with the Minister of Town and Country Planning and Minister of Agriculture"—
is one that can be discussed now; but nothing has been said so far about it. In case it is to be moved, I should like to say a word about it, if this is the proper stage. Before that, however, I should like to refer to the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am not sure that his conclusion may not be right and possibly his Amendment may be the best of the various Amendments suggested, but I think not, on the whole. He told us that there was no doubt at all that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the person best fitted for the selection of persons of legal knowledge and experience. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am sorry—that the Lord Chancellor is the person best fitted to appoint to all high legal office. That may be true, but the Lord Chancellor does not do so. The most important ones are selected by the Prime Minister

—the Lords of Appeal, and so on. It did not seem to me that my right hon. Friend's principle there formed a very good first foundation stone for his argument, nor did I quite follow the second foundation stone for his argument. With deepest respect for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Committee and the Chair, I was not quite sure of the propriety, constitutionally or even perhaps from the point of view of privilege, of the second foundation stone of his argument, which appeared to be that he was authorised by our Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor to say that our Noble Friend waived aside the poisoned chalice—a consecrated phrase.
That seems to me to be an improper argument, and I am sure an inappropriate one; when this House is considering who is the most fit person to perform this function, I do not think it proper for any person, however eminent, to say, "Whoever is to appoint, it shall not be I"—or that it is, with respect to the Chair, even in Order. Nor is it true that the Lord Chancellor never does exercise functions of this sort. I have not refreshed my memory: I have not consulted books, even my own; but I would ask, on a vague memory, on which I would not hang a dog, what about pensions appeals and such things? The question is whether the Lord Chancellor is appropriate when you want to be quite sure that what is to be looked for is men of a judicial habit of mind, who will consider the interest of our policy and the country rather than the convenience, or even the policy, of the Administration. Is it in those circumstances best that the House should direct that the Minister primarily responsible shall be the Minister who is the keeper of His Majesty's conscience and the head of His Majesty's judiciary. I am still not quite clear why it should be thought preferable to choose the First Lord of the Treasury, nor how, by choosing the First Lord of the Treasury, who is the top boy of that Department, rather than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is the second boy and runner-up, you make any great difference.
With those preliminary remarks, I should like to say a word about my own Amendment. I am not quite sure that this is the best Amendment. [Interruption.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer may be amused; he may easily be positive


about all his Amendments, but he does not have to think them all up himself, and that makes confidence come easier. I think there is something to be said for his Amendment but there has been an attempt made to put across in this connection a doctrine which, under the guise of Ministerial modesty, threatens to strengthen the hands of the Administration as against the House. That is an over-strained, and, I think, ridiculously excessive, doctrine of joint responsibility.
As far as I can see, the practical effect of putting in the First Lord of the Treasury, rather than anybody else, would be this. It would mean that any question about the composition of the Commission, whatever anybody might want, would necessarily be a matter of confidence: the Whips would be on, and all' that. I think that that is the main difference; whereas, when the thing is the business of some one Minister, the Minister has to make many decisions, small and large, some of which he knows about and some of which he does not know about, and he has to decide which of those decisions can be well kept within the office, and which are matters which might raise the doctrine of joint responsibility, where it is his business to make sure that he has the Cabinet with him. The test of whether he guesses wrong is, suppose a row ensues, what this House decides. There, is the test. If it is His Majesty nominally—which practically means the Prime Minister, and either implicitly or actually, the whole Cabinet—there can be no question of that sort arising; and, therefore, the Amendment would tend to make more difficult the raising of any question in this House about the composition of the Commission than with any of the other proposed solutions—I think so: I am not dead certain, and I am open to the correction of the learned Attorney-General or anybody else. If that is so, the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friends and myself may possibly be, the best. It should continue to be, as I think in a very large sense it must be, primarily a Treasury responsibility; but there should be a statutory authority upon Treasury Ministers to consult certain other Ministers. It is quite possible, among a series of, I agree, rather dubious alternatives, that that is the best, and I seriously invite the Committee to consider whether it is not the best.

Major Yark: I feel that the Amendment of the Senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) is, in fact, half way between that of the Chancellor and that of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope); but neither of them—although I have my name to one—quite meets the point which has been put again and again in this House on a series of matters. Over a long period of years this House has been trying to find a definite alternative to the Executive's power in an independent tribunal, and every time there has been severe controversy. The House has been at loggerheads with the Executive time and time again. I think that on every one of those occasions—certainly on the one or two that I remember—the suggestion that has appealed most strongly to those Members who opposed the Government has been that the Lord Chancellor was the man most likely to produce that independent tribunal. I feel that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has gone nowhere in meeting the suggestion put forward by my noble Friend the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke). His Amendment is on the face of it a concession, but it is in fact no concession at all. On the other hand, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), in his Amendment, goes, I believe, as far as this Committee would like to go without really altering the sense of the Clause at all. Although I have my name to another Amendment, I feel that his suggestion is really the best.
The controversy is really in two parts. The first is that which concerns the Chairman. On that I have no doubt whatever that the method proposed by the Chancellor is just the same as at present envisaged, and we ought to stand firm, and try to drive the Chancellor into making the concession that the Chairman shall be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. In regard to the Members of the Commission, I do not feel so strongly. I have come round to the Chancellor's argument that there should be no partisan spirit in the choosing of members. I think that, on balance, he is right there. I am quite certain that we should have the Chairman appointed by the judicial head of the Government. I feel that the Chancellor is splitting hairs, and if he looks at the Amendment moved in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry


he will see that its acceptance would be entirely satisfactory.

4.15 p.m.

Sir Herbert Holdsworth: I cannot see the slightest difference between the Amendment proposed by the Chancellor and the Bill as it stands. I believe I am correct in saying that the real position of the Prime Minister is First Lord of the Treasury. The Chancellor of the Exchequer acknowledged that everybody was satisfied with the suggestion that the Commission should be appointed by the Treasury. I desire to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller). That Amendment would help everybody and would also meet the wishes of the people outside. It is an acknowledged fact that when a committee or person is appointed by the Lord Chancellor it is done purely from a judicial point of view.

Mr. Petherick: I should not have been at all happy if the Chancellor had insisted on the Clause as it stands, leaving the Treasury with power to make the necessary appointments of the Commission. In considering the various Amendments before us, I agree with my right hon. Friend that on the whole—and it is a narrow balance in any direction—it would be unwise to leave the appointment of these members to the Lord Chancellor. It has been pointed out that they must be judicially-minded men. That is true but it is not everything; they must be men who are familiar with the kind of problems which are likely to come before them. Therefore, the Lord Chancellor, whose appointments would be devoted to a particular profession, would not be the most suitable person in whose hands to place appointments of this nature.
Then comes the question of whether it would be advisable to have Ministerial representatives on this Commission. Every Minister and representatives of every Ministry, such as the Ministry of Agriculture or the Ministry of Works, would perhaps tend to associate it with the particular view of that particular Ministry. I think it might cause alarm if that particular Amendment were accepted. Why not leave the matter as it originally was in the hands of the Treasury? There again, as this is a

Treasury Bill and the Treasury are guarding the public purse, for obvious reasons I do not think it would be advisable to leave the appointment in the hands of the Treasury. The Chancellor is now suggesting that it should be put into the hands of the First Lord of the Treasury. That appears on the face of it to be splitting hairs, but I do not think that that is quite the case.
If I may here join issue with my hon. Friend the Senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), I would say that I do not quite agree with him. I thought he was not quite certain in his mind about the case. What is the position if the appointment is put in the hands of the Prime Minister of the day? I think the difference is very substantial. On the face of it he is really receiving the appointment as the King's First Minister. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University will interrupt me if I am wrong, but there are certain matters which it has been become customary to allocate to the Prime Minister per se and not as First Lord of the Treasury. He has an immense power of patronage in all kinds of different directions. The Prime Minister of the day appoints bishops and archbishops, on behalf of His Majesty of course; he appoints governors of the B.B.C. and governors abroad, on behalf of His Majesty again. Surely he is exercising his powers, admittedly on behalf of His Majesty, but none the less as Prime Minister. Why does he do it? He has at his disposal a secretariat who are accustomed to dealing with matters of that sort and who, if I may use a vulgarism, "know the chaps." I think they would be more likely than the Treasury to advise a good choice. Certainly they would be likely to recommend a better and wider choice than if the Lord Chancellor were the appointing power. Therefore, for those reasons I submit that the Amendment which has been proposed by my right hon. Friend is a wise one.

Mr. Gallacher: As one of the spectators of this battle which has been proceeding on the other side, I have one or two short remarks. We are advised that the Lord Chancellor is a good man for making this selection. Why? Because the Lord Chancellor can be relied upon to choose the safest possible men from the point of view of private property. There is not the faintest chance of the Lord Chancellor choosing anyone of a revolu-


tionary character. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not press his own Amendment, but should keep the Clause as it is. The important thing in a Bill of this kind, and in a situation such as this, is that the Commission should be partisan. I ask the Chancellor to withdraw his Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Headlam: I suggest that whoever makes these appointments will make much the same kind of selection. It seems to me obvious that the appointments will be made from among the people who are most suited. Therefore, I am not one of those who think that the matter is of great importance in that respect, but I do think it is important in another respect. These matters dealt with in this Bill will concern so many people all over the country that it is essential they should feel that whoever is responsible for the appointment of the members of this Commission should be above all suspicion of having any interest other than that of the general good. This implies, I think, that the Minister responsible for advising His Majesty should not be the head of any Department concerned. I do not agree, therefore, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his suggestion that it should be anybody connected with the Treasury. I submit that the Amendment suggesting the selection of the Lord Chancellor is the best. The Lord Chancellor is largely outside politics—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—outside politics in the sense that he is not likely to take a strictly political view, although I agree that he might not be inclined to put revolutionaries on this Commission. In this I think he would be quite right, but this, of course, is a matter of personal opinion and political outlook. But I think the suggestion that the Lord Chancellor would necessarily appoint persons with purely legal qualifications is, I think, absurd.
I should favour the proposal which suggests the Lord Chancellor as the person to appoint this Commission, because in the considerable correspondence I have had on this subject the writers generally seem to be distrustful of the Treasury—quite unfairly, I am certain. At the same time we should take this attitude of mind into consideration, and as this is a matter which affects so many of the public—small property owners as well as large property

owners and local authorities—it would be well to set up a Commission whose impartiality can give no cause for anxiety. In the public interest generally it is essential in a matter which affects so many people to have a body which is above any kind of suspicion of being infected with the Treasury point of view.

Mr. Jewson: I desire to speak on a matter which is of very great importance to the country. I have in mind the consideration of interests such as the maintenance of a stretch of country which we in Norfolk and Suffolk know as Breckland, the value of which would not be very apparent from an agricultural point of view but which is of the greatest importance to such people as naturalists and so on. There are, of course, in the country other places of a similar nature which have suffered encroachments during the war and which, if the country is to maintain its attractiveness for those who live in it, must be restored to their primitive wildness. It is therefore of great importance that we should choose a judicial body which is able to give way not only to material considerations but to the more immaterial but extremely important considerations such as I have mentioned. I would prefer to support the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) and others. I think that is the best suggestion which has been made, and I hope that, after further consideration, the Chancellor will be able to accept it.

4.30 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): We have had an interesting discussion, and, of course, it is entirely a question for the Committee whether they feel that the arguments have been put and they are now in a position to come to a decision, but I would like, on behalf of the Government and my right hon. Friend, to say a few words on the points that have been made, particularly, of course, since my right hon. Friend spoke. There are a number of Amendments and suggestions on the Order Paper. They are a varied list, and some hon. Members like their own Amendments while some have not liked their own but have preferred other people's. The argument, I think, has rather concentrated on the question of the Lord Chancellor and the suggestion of my right hon. Friend regard-


ing His Majesty. The suggestion in the Amendment put down by my right hon. Friend really makes very little change in the Bill as introduced, and those Who put forward the argument that it does I believe to be entirely wrong.
We have many cases on the Statute Book in which a particular Minister may appoint a committee or do an act of one kind or another. The Chancellor is the effective head of the Treasury and he would be the one to make the appointment in the Bill as it was introduced. That was objected to, but, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), it is certainly not alone a Treasury matter. The Minister of Town and Country Planning is concerned, the Minister of Agriculture is concerned, and there may very well be other Ministers involved. It is one of those cases where it is wrong to say that there is only one Ministry interested. If a committee was appointed to deal with public health, everybody might say that the Minister of Health was the man to deal with it, but here we are setting up a body to deal with a very wide range of interests, and my right hon. Friend showed that there was very considerable force in the argument, without admitting that the Treasury would not take it into account, that the Commission should represent the interests with which it would have to deal. The way to meet that criticism most completely is the way which my right hon. Friend has adopted. To say that the Commission is to be appointed by His Majesty puts it into the top category in importance and shows that it is regarded by this House as one dealing with matters of wide and general interest and that it is appropriate that the appointment should be put under a particular Minister.

Sir H. Holdsworth: How can that be, when we know that His Majesty will have to act upon the advice of somebody? We are specifying that certain Ministers should give advice, and we think it is better that the Lord Chancellor should do so.

The Attorney-General: I am afraid I must disagree in toto with my hon. Friend. There is, of course, the Prime Minister, who is the person to submit names to His Majesty in these cases, and he will consult the whole of his colleagues in the Ministry. In cases of this kind, it is the duty of the Prime Minister, who has his col-

leagues the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Town and Country Planning and the Lord Chancellor whom he can consult. As pointed out by the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick), who expressed what I am trying to say better than I am able to express it, the submission which the Prime Minister makes represents the view of Ministers as a whole. To come to the negative side, with regard to the Lord Chancellor, as was pointed out in discussing pensions appeals tribunals, it is inconvenient to have the Minister of Health appointing the medical members and the Lord Chancellor appointing the legal members. He appoints them all, but his main function in our Constitution is surely to deal with legal appointments. We feel that, by putting this form into the Bill, we have met, and more completely met, all the criticisms that were put forward in a better way than that suggested by any of the Amendments on the Order Paper. The Prime Minister, being the adviser of the King in this matter, and head of the Government, is in a position to take the advice of his colleagues, and has a great deal of patronage and means of finding out who are good men for particular positions, as no other man can do. We do, with confidence, submit this proposal to the Committee as a change which really meets the criticism more completely than any other suggestion which has been made.

Mr. Turton: It is not clear to me what my right hon. Friend is actually doing by this Amendment. Surely, we could, under this Amendment, have an appointment by Warrant under the Sign Manual, to be countersigned by any one of the distinguished right hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Front Bench? That is actually, I believe, how the Forestry Commission is appointed—under Warrant under the Sign Manual. Would it be possible to have an appointment by Order in Council?

The Attorney-General: Yes, I think so. I am sorry, but I meant to deal with that point. There are different forms in our Statute Book, and I think this is the best form. It is used, for instance, with regard to the appointment of Ministers. The appointment is actually made under the Sign Manual, but there is no need to put that in. I do not think there are any precedents for saying that the appointment has to be made by His Majesty on the


advice of the Prime Minister. Where advice is tendered by the Prime Minister this is the normal form. There are many precedents where appointments are made by His Majesty on the advice of some subordinate Minister or particular Department, and I think it would be throwing doubt on the position if we sought to put in any special words. That is the intention, and my right hon. Friend has clearly stated it, and we believe that those are the right words.

Mr. Marshall: If this Commission is to be appointed, it has to be a Commission in which the fullest confidence can be reposed. It appears that, if we agree to the Lord Chancellor appointing it, the control of this House has simply gone at the very beginning, for the Lord Chancellor will appoint a Commission and this House will have no word in the appointment or be able to influence the appointment in any way. From that point of view the Chancellor's Amendment seems the best, but I am sorry that the Chancellor has not consented to what I would call departmentalise the matter in accordance with the idea of the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope)—that he should put on the Commission representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture, the Board of Trade, the Treasury and the Ministry of Town and Country Planning.
I say that because of the variety of interests involved in this matter. There is the question of works on private land. Owners of private land in this House have always been in the habit of speaking for themselves and they do not need any defence from me. It appears that certain war factories have been placed in situations where they may well become centres of new satellite towns. I do not think that is a good principle upon which to plan the country, and it appears to me that, in order to get the best possible advice, we ought to have the opinions of the Minister of Town and Country Planning on an issue of that character. It is a matter that cannot be dealt with by the principle of the profit and loss account as far as the Treasury is concerned. Then there are many more industries on land owned by municipalities, probably on land which they have earmarked for housing. Here, again, the Treasury, in my estimation, is not the proper autho-

rity to appoint a Commission to deal with land, or war factories upon land, which has been earmarked for housing.

Mr. Benson: May I ask my hon. Friend whether, in the event of a war factory being on such land as he has instanced, he is suggesting that the effect of putting the appointment of one member of the Commission into the hands of the Minister of Town and Country Planning would lead to the demolition of that factory under this Bill?

Mr. Marshall: I am suggesting that the interests of the corporation concerned would be better looked after if there was a member nominated by the Minister of Town and Country Planning on that Commission. I do not put it any higher than that. It seems to me a very reasonable deduction to make. Again, we know that there are suggested Amendments to the Bill from the Commons and Footpaths Preservation Society. They are very much concerned about war industries placed on land in their ownership. The Treasury is not the proper Ministry, and is not the best Ministry, to deal with war industries on land like that. In my estimation, the Minister of Town and Country Planning has a very definite stake there, and his advice should be sought, and it can only be sought in the best way by his having a member on the Commission. I see many war factories, some of them placed on very good agricultural land, and I can quite imagine a position, if inspired by the Treasury atmosphere, in which this Commission would be saying that a factory was too expensive to be simply demolished and the land restored to the purposes of agriculture; but if the Minister of Agriculture has a representative on that Commission it seems to me that the purposes of agriculture in this country will be far better served. Generally speaking, my view is that if this Commission had been departmentalised it would have given greater confidence to the many and varied interests concerned.
4.45 P.m.
I know where a war factory has been placed on a green belt which a corporation was preserving for the amenities of its citizens. It is a very expensive factory. I should have no hesitation in saying that it ought to come down. It is a very valuable factory, but I am concerned more about the amenities of future generations


than about the Treasury losing a little money on these transactions. I should certainly, if I could put my hand up in the matter, vote for that factory being pulled down and demolished and the land being restored to the corporation for the purpose for which it was going to be used, namely, to provide pleasure, recreation and amenities for its citizens. If the Commission is appointed by the Treasury, and there is a Treasury outlook on the matter, the factory will remain. The country will definitely lose, although the Treasury may gain a little in cash. I am sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not agreed to departmentalise.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I listened with the greatest care to what the learned Attorney-General said and I entirely accept his statement as to the effect of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment in raising the status of.the Commission. Obviously, a commission appointed by His Majesty has a higher status than a commission appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it is still open for the Treasury to exercise an influence on the appointment of the members of this Commission. I have no doubt that, if the Chancellor's Amendment is accepted, the Treasury will have a voice in who is to be appointed, but the public will not know of it and we shall not know of it, and we shall not have any opportunity of saying anything about it or of knowing anything about it.
The purpose of my Amendment, for which the learned Attorney-General has stated there are many precedents, is to have the status of the Commission raised through the appointment being made by His Majesty, but to exclude all possibility of such advice being given to His Majesty from the Treasury without our being able to hold anyone responsible. The Amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friends provides that His Majesty, on the advice of the Lord Chancellor, shall make the appointment. The Lord Chancellor can, I suppose, if he wishes, take the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and probably he would do so in a matter in which the Chancellor was greatly concerned. It is for these reasons that I wish to move the Amendment. I would have liked the learned Attorney-General to have dealt more specifically with it, if the Government are not able to accept it.

Amendment negatived.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peake): I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, leave out "the Treasury," and insert "His Majesty."

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Are not the other Amendments to be moved?

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): There was a general discussion on the Amendment which has just been dealt with and if any hon. Member wishes to divide the Committee on any of the other Amendments, those Amendments will be called. I understand that there may be a wish to divide on the Amendment coming immediately after the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the name of the ion Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller)—in page 1, line 12, leave out "the Treasury," and insert "His Majesty on the advice of the Lord Chancellor." If the Committee wish to divide on any other Amendment, I will call it.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I do not think that the Committee would wish to divide on the third Amendment on the Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member far Oxford (Mr. Hogg)—in page 1, line 11. leave out from the second "of," to end of Sub-section, and insert:
members (not being less than five) as the Lord Chancellor may think expedient and shall include members chosen for their knowledge and experience of agriculture, architecture, industry, town and country planning and the conduct of legal proceedings.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid that we cannot discuss that Amendment. We have had a general discussion and we cannot have another discussion, as it was understood that we should discuss the various Amendments together. If hon. Members wish to divide, that is another matter, but we cannot go on discussing the Amendments.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I am extremely sorry to press the point, but I fail to see how we can get the Amendment of my hon. Friend into the Bill at this stage unless it is called. There has been a discussion on it and Members of the Committee have expressed feelings in favour of it.

The Deputy-Chairman: I did not call it. We have now an Amendment before the Committee which has been moved from the Treasury bench and I am now putting that Amendment.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I am referring to the third Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Oxford. We have dismissed the first Amendment and we have had some discussion on the third Amendment and there has been general approval.

Hon. Members: No.

The Deputy-Chairman: We have had a general discussion on half-a-dozen Amendments. It was agreed that it should be a wide discussion so that the various points could be raised, but the discussion was on the first Amendment and that covered the other Amendments. The Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has now been called and it will be put to the Committee for decision without a discussion. I will now proceed to do that.

Major Sir Derrick Gunston: If the Amendment which has just been

called is agreed to, will it prevent a decision from taking place on the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller)—

The Deputy-Chairman: No, I have already said I will call that Amendment because I understand there may be a wish to divide upon it or to negative it. There is no point, after having come to an agreement, in calling every Amendment. I really think we ought to get on.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, after the words last inserted, to insert "on the advice of the Lord Chancellor."

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 33; Noes, 240.

Division No. 13.]
AYES.
[4.55 p.m.


Acland-Troyts, Lt.-Col. Sir G. J.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Southby, Comdr. Sir A. R. J.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Gratton, J. F.
Stourton, Hon. J. J.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Holdsworth, Sir H.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (Northwich)


Berry, Hon. G. L. (Buckingham)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Studholme, Major H. G.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Watt, F. C. (Edinburgh Cen.)


Butcher, H. W.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Cobb, Captain E. C.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.
Woolley, Major W. E.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Morrison, Major J. G. (Salisbury)
York, Major C.


Etherton, Ralph
Peters, Dr. S. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gammans, Gapt. L, D.
Simmonds, Sir O. E.
Mr. Manningham-Buller and


Graham, Captain A. C.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Commander Galbraith.




NOES.


Agnew, Comdr. P. G.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Ellis, Sir G.


Albery, Sir Irving
Charleton, H. C.
Emery, J. F.


Anderson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. (Sc'h. Univ.)
Chater, D.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.


Apsley, Lady
Cluse, W. S.
Fleming, Squadron-Leader E. L.


Barnes, A. J.
Cocks, F. S.
Foster, W.


Barr, J.
Colegate, W. A.
Frankel, D.


Barstow, P. G.
Colman, N. C. D.
Fyfe, Major Sir D. P. M.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Conant, Major R. J. E.
Gallacher, W.


Beattie, F. (Cathcart)
Cove, W. G.
Gibbins, J.


Benson, G.
Critchley, A.
Gibbons, Lt.-Col. W. E.


Berry, Major Hon. J. S. (Hitchin)
Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Gibson, Sir C. G.


Bevan, A. (Ebbw Vale)
Culverwell, C. T.
Glanville, J. E.


Blair, Sir R.
Daggar, G.
Gledhill, G.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Gower, Sir R. V.


Bower, Norman (Harrow)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Grant-Ferris, Wing-Commander R.


Bower, Comdr. R. T. (Cleveland)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Granville, E. L.


Bowles, F. G.
Davison, Sir W. H.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)


Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)
Donner, Squadron-Leader P. W.
Greenwell, Colonel T. G.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Douglas, F. C. R.
Grenfell, D. R.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Drewe, C.
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Groves, T. E.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Gruffydd, Professor W. J.


Buchanan, G.
Dugdale, John (W. Bromwich)
Guest, Lt.-Col. H. (Drake)


Bull, B. B.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. (Kens'gt'n, N.)
Guest, Lt.-Cal. Hn. O. (Camberwell)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Dunglass, Lord
Guy, W. H.


Burden, T. W.
Eccles, D. M.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.


Burke, W. A.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Cadogan, Maj. Sir E.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Hardie, Mrs. Agnes


Campbell, Sir E. T. (Bromley)
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.


Cary, R. A.
Edwards, Walter J. (Whilechapel)
Harvey, T. E.


Challen, Flight-Lieut. C.
Elliot, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.
Henderson. J. (Ardwick)




Henderson, J. J. Craik (Leeds, N.E.)
Marshall, F.
Sidney, Captain W. P.


Heneage, Lt.-Col. Sir A. P.
Mathers, G.
Silverman, S. S.


Hepburn, Major P. G. T. Buchan.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Sloan, A.


Hewlett, T. H.
Messer, F.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Hicks, E. G.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Snadden, W. MoN.


Higgs, W. F.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Somervell, R. Hon. Sir D. B.


Hubbard, T. F.
Montague, F.
Sorensen, R. W.


Hudson, Sir A. (Hackney, N.)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Mort, D. L.
Spears, Maj.-Gen. Sir E. L.


Hughes, R. Moelwyn
Mott-Radclyffe, Major C. E.
Stephen, C.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Muff, G.
Stewart, W. Joseph (H'gton-le-Spring)


Hunter, Sir T.
Murray, J. D. (Spennymoor)
Stokes, R. R.


Hutchinson, G, C. (Ilford)
Naylor, T. E.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Jeffreys, General Sir G. D.
Nunn, W.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray &amp; Nairn)


Jennings, R.
Oldfield, W. H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


John, W.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Suirdale, Colonel Viscount


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Jones, Sir L. (Swansea, W.)
Owen, Major Sir G.
Sutcliffe, H.


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W.
Sykes, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. Sir F. H.


Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Comdr. Hon. L. W.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Tate, Mrs. Mavis C.


Keeling, E. H.
Pearson, A.
Taylor, Major C. S. (Eastbourne)


Keir, Mr. Cazalet
Perkins, W. R. D.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Kendall, W. D.
Petherick, M.
Thorneycroft, Capt. G. E. P. (Stafford)


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)


Key, C. W.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Tinker, J. J.


King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Turton, R. H.


Kirby, B. V.
Prescott, Capt. W. R. S.
Viant, S. P.


Lancaster, Lieut.-Col. C. G.
Procter, Major H. A.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Lawson, H. M. (Skipton)
Pym, L. R.
Walkden, A. G. (Bristol, S.)


Lawson, J. J. (Chester-le-Street)
Quibell, D. J. K.
Walkden, E. (Doncaster)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Rankin, Sir R.
Watkins, F. C.


Lipson, D. L.
Rathbone, Eleanor
Watson, W. McL.


Little, Dr. J. (Down)
Reakes, G. L. (Wallasey)
Watt, G. S. Harvie (Richmond)


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Ladywood)
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Loftus, P. C.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
White, Sir Dymoke (Fareham)


Longhurst, Captain H. C.
Ritson, J.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blaydon)


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Roberts, W.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Macdonald, Captain Peter (I. of W.)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Willoughby, de Eresby, Major Lord


McGovern, J.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Windsor, W.


Mack, J. D.
Ross Taylor, W.
Windsor-Clive, Lt.-Col. G.


McKie, J. H.
Rothschild, J. A. de
Womersley, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


McKinlay, A. S.
Rowlands, G.
Woodburn, A.


Maclay, Hon. John S. (Montrose)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Wootton-Davies, J. H.


Magnay, T.
Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)
Wright, Group Capt. J. (Erdingl[...]


Mainwaring, W. H.
Salt, E. W.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.



Mander, Sir G. le M.
Scott, Lord William (Ro'b'h &amp; Selk'k)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—


Manning, C. A. G.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Major A. S. L. Young and




Mr. Beechman.


Question put, and agreed to.

Consequential Amendments made.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 1, line 22, at end, insert "or of the Civil Service."
I do not think it is necessary to say much in support of this Amendment. It is obviously undesirable that an hon. Member of this House should be a member of the Commission and it would be equally undesirable, in my view, if a member of the Civil Service should be a member of this Commission. I hope, therefore, that the Chancellor will be able to accept this Amendment without it being necessary for the Committee to spend much time upon it, since it is obviously necessary and desirable that those words should be inserted.

Mr. Peake: I can do this for my hon. Friend—give him an absolutely unqualified assurance that we have no intention

whatever that a member of the Civil Service should be appointed to this Commission. I entirely agree that such a thing would be undesirable. At the same time I think my hon. Friend will see that there are objections, on the grounds of creating precedents, to putting specific words in the Bill to that effect. If one were to begin on a number of specified exceptions—beyond, of course, the normal exception of hon. Members of the House of Commons, with which I understand my hon. Friend agrees—they might in the course of time become rather a long list. One can think of other classes of people of whom obviously it could be argued that they should not be members of particular bodies. Instances will readily occur to my hon. Friends in all quarters of the House and, therefore, I will not waste their time by citing instances. I can, however, give my hon. Friend an unqualified assurance upon


this matter and I hope that, with that assurance, he will not think it necessary to press his Amendment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: In view of that unqualified assurance, which I am only too glad to accept, I ask leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 2, line 1, leave out "Treasury may," and insert "Commission shall."—[Mr. Peake.]

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 2, line 2, leave out from the first "and," to "determine," in line 3, and insert:
may appoint such other officers and such servants of the Commission as the Commission may, with the consent of the Treasury.
This is a consequential Amendment.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: May I ask one question about the last six words of the Amendment, "with the consent of the Treasury"? I think this relates to payment to members of the Commission and, therefore, it is necessary for the Treasury to give its consent. Am I right in assuming that it does not mean that the Treasury will interfere in any way?

Mr. Peake: Perhaps I may explain the point of these Amendments, which is that the appointment of the Secretary of the Commission shall be a matter not for the Treasury at all but for the Commission itself, and as regards other officers and servants of the Commission, they will also be appointed by the Commission subject to the consent of the Treasury.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Sir Alfred Beit: Might I ask, in view of the change effected by the Amendment just passed, to whom should questions now be addressed relative to the operations of this Commission? Presumably, under the Bill as it first was drafted, these questions would have been addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but now, in view of this Amendment, I am not quite clear to whom we may put questions regarding the operations and activities of the Commission, and I should like to be informed on that subject.

Sir J. Anderson: If we invest this Commission, as I hope we shall, with all the character and quality of a quasi-judicial body, occasions will, I suppose, not very frequently arise for putting questions in regard to the conduct of the Commission itself, because it will be the master of its own functions. Such questions as may arise concerning the Commission, its composition, its status, what I might call its internal economy, would properly be put to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister because there will be no other Minister indicated as having any responsibility whatever with regard to the matter.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Procedure of Commission.)

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 2, line 14, leave out "two," and insert "three."
The wording of the Clause aft present is:
At any meeting of the Commission two or such greater number as the Commission may determine shall be the quorum.
I and my Friends think that two is too few for a quorum. This is an important Commission. I think the Chancellor has the present idea of two from the War Damage Commission where the wording is just that, but here we have a far more vital Commission for the interests of the community, going into such questions as where a town planning scheme is breaking down owing to a Government Department invading their rights, and quite clearly I think we want a larger number.

Mr. Peake: I find the words of my hon. Friend so persuasive that without more ado I will accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 2, line 24, leave out "to," and insert" (3) and."
The object of this Amendment is to take out of operation Sub-section (4) of Section 290 of the Local Government Act of 1933. I quote from the Section, but instead of the word "Department," we must read here the word "commission." It says:
where a Department cause any such inquiries to be held, the costs incurred by them in relation to that inquiry (including such reasonable


sum not exceeding five guineas a day as they may determine for the services of any officer engaged in the inquiry) shall be paid by such local authority or party to the inquiry as the Department may direct. …
So the effect of the incorporation of that Section in this Bill will mean that when the Commission think fit to hold a public inquiry they must order someone who appears before that inquiry, whether it be the local authority or any other party, to pay the costs which the Commission themselves have incurred at that inquiry. That is a great deterrent, and it must be so to many people, but there may be many small people who might be prevented from lodging objections to a scheme. If a scheme is propounded and an objection is lodged the Commission may, if they think fit, cause a local inquiry to be held. That inquiry may last some time. There may be numbers of officials present on behalf of the Commission, and it seems to me quite wrong that when there is such an inquiry, because the Commission think there should be one, the parties who attend before it should be saddled with the costs of the investigation by the Commission. Sub-section (5) of the Local Government Act does give the Commission power to say that one party shall pay another party's costs, which may be very desirable in the case of frivolous objections, but to say that a party who is to be deprived of his interests by the Crown must pay the costs of the Commission seems to me and my hon. Friends quite wrong.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: I do not want to add very much to what my hon. Friend has said, because I think he has put the case exceedingly well. I cannot believe that the Government would desire to inflict hardship upon someone who was trying to come before the Commission and I hope, therefore, that the Chancellor will find it possible to accept this Amendment.

Mr. Peake: As I understand my hon. Friend's Amendment, it would result in the omission from the Bill of any reference whatever to Sub-section (4) of Section 290 of the Local Government Act, 1933. That Sub-section makes provision as to payment of costs when a local inquiry is held. The effect of the Amendment, if any reference to Sub-section (4) was taken out of this Clause, would be that

there would be no power resting with anybody to make any order with regard to costs.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I have a copy of the Act here, and Sub-section (5) says:
The department may make orders as to the costs of the parties at any such inquiry, and as to the parties by whom such costs shall be paid, and every such order may be made a rule of the High Court on the application of the party named in the order.
Sub-section (4) deals only with the costs of the Commission, and says that those costs shall be paid, not may be paid, by the local authority or any other party to the inquiry.

Mr. Peake: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to the contents of Sub-section (5). But the effect of Sub-section (4) is that the cost of the inquiry, quite apart from the costs of the parties to the inquiry—that is the distinction I want to draw—may be ordered to be paid—

Hon. Members: Shall be paid.

Mr. Peake: Well, then, shall be paid by such parties to the inquiry as the Department may direct. In this case it will not be a Department which is concerned, it will be the Commission; and the direction under Sub-section (4) would be given by the Commission and not by a Department concerned—which is the usual practice where an inquiry is held under the Local Government Act. I imagine that in the absence of any direction by the Commission costs will be payable for the cost of the inquiry under Sub-section (4). As I read the Sub-section, it depends upon a direction being given by the Department concerned, if it is under the Local Government Act, or by the Commission, which has authority under the proposal in the Bill. If I am wrong on this matter we will take steps to correct it on the Report stage, but it seems to me that it is within the discretion of the Commission to decide whether or not they make an order for payment of the costs of the inquiry under Sub-section (4) of Section 290 of the Local Government Act in cases where a local inquiry is held at the instance of the Commission. It seems to me not an unreasonable provision that the Commission should not only be able to order payment of party costs in this local inquiry, but should also be able to make an order as regards the costs of the


person holding the inquiry. There is a limit in the Sub-section which is specified as:
… not exceeding five guineas a day for the services of any officer engaged in the inquiry. …
A case may arise where it is fair and reasonable that the cost should be made payable under this Sub-section. There is a possibility that objection may be taken to proposals made under Part II of the Bill, and there should be discretion within the Commission to make an order of this character. I do not say that they would always make an order; I do not believe they are bound to make an order; but I think it is a wise provision that this power should be in the hands of the Commission for use in such cases.

Major York: The Financial Secretary has stated a case for which I can see some justification, but is not the point in regard to any requisitioned land, or any land damaged by war work, that this Commission is in the nature of a court of summary jurisdiction, or a low form of law court—perhaps I had better say a junior form of court? Surely, the Government would not expect any applicant to that junior court to bear any part of the cost of the actual court itself. That seems to be a most curious suggestion. I dare say there may be some frivolous cases brought before the Commission—I cannot say—but even when frivolous cases are brought into a court of law the costs of the judge and the court officials are not, as a rule, paid by either side. I feel rather dissatisfied with my right hon. Friend's reply.

Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson: I wanted to ask my right hon. Friend, before he concluded his explanation, whether it was contemplated that the commissioners would have power to direct that the costs of these inquiries in suitable cases should be paid by the Government Department concerned, or whether it is only contemplated that the costs will be paid by the parties.

Mr. Peake: May I make myself perfectly clear? It would be for the Commission to decide where the burden of costs is to fall. They will be just as able to make an order against the Government Department concerned in the claim, as they will be against any person whose property is affected. Is that quite clear?

Mr. Hutchinson: I have been looking at Sub-section (4) of the Local Government Act, and it provides that costs shall be paid by any local authority or person.

Sir J. Anderson: "Party", not person.

Mr. Hutchinson: If my right hon. Friend will look at the end of the Section he will see that it says:
… any amount so certified and directed by the Department to be paid by any authority or person shall be recoverable from that authority or person. …

Captain Duncan: I hope my right hon. Friend will have another look at this matter between now and the next stage of this Bill. No doubt the Commission will have power, with the consent of the Treasury, to pay the expenses of the Commission. I can quite understand that it will be right that parties shall pay their own costs, which may be considerable. Plans and maps may have to be prepared and, possibly, counsel engaged. My right hon. Friend, although he is not a practising lawyer, will realise that counsel are expensive, and that in these cases there will be considerable costs. Frivolous appearances may be put in at public inquiries but I should have thought that this would have been sufficient to deal with that aspect of the matter. When it comes to the payment of expenses of the Commission I should have thought that the State would in all cases have carried their expenses, or the expenses of the person appointed to hold the public inquiry. This sort of case is not quite analogous with other cases under the Local Government Act.

Mr. Peake: Perhaps it may shorten the discussion if I say that we will, of course, have another look at this matter. This Amendment appeared on the Order Paper only this morning. Although the Bill had its Second Reading on 13th February, I realise that my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) has been spending much of the intervening time in Moscow and therefore brings a fresh mind to bear on these problems, which have been exercising myself and other Members of the Committee so closely. Of course, we will look into the question again. I think the exposition I have given to the Committee is correct, but if it is wrong we will deal with the matter on the Report stage.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the undesirability of legislation by reference, would it not be well to consider including a Sub-section here dealing with the powers which the Commission has?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I thought my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, in dealing with this Sub-section, set out the position with complete accuracy. The point I want to make, before asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, is that where you have a Commission with discretion as to whether they shall hold an inquiry, they will be stultifying their own decision to hold an inquiry if, having held it, they then say that a particular person will have to pay the whole cost of the Commission. I think that when the Commission holds an inquiry the State should carry the burden. In view of the assurance that this matter will be looked into before the Report stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Solicitor-General (Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I beg to move, in page 2, line 3o, at the end, insert:
Provided that no local authority shall be ordered to pay costs under Sub-section (4) of that Section in the case of any inquiry unless it is a party to that inquiry.
As the Committee is now aware, after the consideration of the last Amendment, the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 29 of the Local Government Act deals with cases where the inquiry is concerned with the functions of a local authority. In these circumstances the local authority may, under that Subsection, be made to bear the costs even where it is not a party. In the present circumstances and in the Bill that is before the Committee we consider that it would not be right to make a local authority liable to bear the costs unless it is a party and before the inquiry in that way. This provision is a relief provision, and I hope the Committee will accept it.

Mr. Turton: In view of the undertaking given by the Financial Secretary that this matter will be reconsidered and the provision probably redrafted before the Report stage, would it not be better not to move this Amendment now, but to wait until the Report stage? I am entirely in agreement with the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) that it

would be far better if we did not have legislation by reference and if the Chancellor would bring in an appropriate Sub-section into this Clause. It is a great mistake to deal with this matter partially. The speeches on the last Amendment have shown that the position is extremely unsatisfactory, and no doubt there will be some Amendment on the Report Stage.

Major York: I would like to reinforce what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). The position now is that while the Government are not quite sure on the point raised in the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), they nevertheless have to amend their own Sub-section in order to bring into the Local Government Act a piece of legislation especially designed for this Bill. Surely, in those circumstances it is obvious that what is required is a new Sub-section setting out those Sections of the Local Government Act which are required for this Bill and leaving out those parts which are not required. I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider this matter.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I warmly support what has been said by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major York). Surely it is not too much to ask the Government to consider inserting into this Bill the provision that has been outlined and not to make legislation by reference. Wherever legislation by reference can be avoided, surely it is desirable to avoid it, so that when the Bill becomes an Act any citizen who wants to deal with the question and understand it can get the information from the Act without having to refer to innumerable other Acts in order to understand what is meant by this particular Measure. It would be very greatly to the convenience of everyone concerned if the whole of these provisions could be made intelligible in the words of the Bill without there being any need to refer to previous legislation.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: I feel that this point is one on which we may very easily go astray. I want to add my appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the Amendment at this stage. We are only on


Clause 2 of a 40-page Bill and already it is getting into such a mess that it is becoming unintelligible to the ordinary citizen. We are referring to Amendments to Sub-sections of another Act in which of itself reference is made to "department" when we mean "commission"; and altogether, if we proceed with this Amendment at the present stage, Sub-section (2) of this Clause will become so involved and complicated by reference that it will be a very serious setback to any member of the public who is endeavouring to find out really what his rights are. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to have the provision redrafted.

Mr. McKinlay (Dumbartonshire): I do not see any of the Scottish Law Officers present. I know that the Solicitor-General is a Scotsman, but I am the last person in the world to suggest that he should blackleg on his colleagues from North of the Border. I want to ask whether there is any equivalent Section in the Local Government (Scotland) Act covering this point. I would rather wait to raise that question when the Scottish Law Officers put in an appearance; I know they are overburdened with work, but this is a Bill which applies to Scotland, and some explanations ought to be given about the application to Scotland. I think it would be advisable for the Scottish Law Officers to be here during the discussion of the Bill.

Mr. Douglas: May I point out to my hon. Friend that Clause 53 deals with the application to Scotland and contains references to the appropriate, Scottish Act?

Mr. McKinlay: That is all very well, but I Want the Scottish Law Officers to explain the appropriate Sections.

The Deputy-Chairman: They would be quite out of Order if they did it on the Clause now before the Committee.

Mr. McKinlay: On a point of Order, Mr. Williams. Is it suggested that I am not entitled at this stage to ask, with regard to something which applies to Scotland, what is the equivalent Section in the Local Government (Scotland) Act? When this matter has been disposed of, and we eventually reach the Clause dealing with the application to Scotland, we may discover that it is too late to deal with it.

The Deputy-Chairman: In all probability that matter will come up on Clause 53 and it had better be dealt with then.

Sir J. Anderson: I was about to rise a little earlier to call attention to the fact that the Clause dealing with the application to Scotland is really the place where one would expect to find provisions relating to Scotland. Perhaps I might call attention to the fact that in page 35 of the Bill, at the bottom of the page, the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) will find the answer to his questions. I am sure I am right in saying that a full opportunity will arise on that Clause to deal with any point affecting local government in Scotland. I will take it upon myself to see that the attention of the Scottish Law Officers is directed to the fact that a point of this kind has already been raised.
May I say a word on the substance of the matter with which we have been dealing? I have very great sympathy with the view that legislation by reference is often apt to create confusion and that the method of direct statement has much to commend it. It is perhaps the case that in regard to procedural matters, of which this is an example, reference to other legislation is not so clearly open to objection as in regard to substantive law. I am bound to say that this provision has been drafted by highly competent people and hon. Members will observe that words have been inserted in Clause 2, subsection (4), to indicate the kind of matters that this particular provision of the Local Government Act is concerned with.
My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary has already given an assurance that we will look into the whole matter again between now and the Report stage. I confirm that assurance, but I want to go a little further and say that the consideration which we will give to the matter will extend to the question of form as well as the question of substance. As regards the action we should take at this stage, we are passing for the time being the provisions of Clause 2, Subsection (4). The further Amendment which we have just been discussing is designed to correct a flaw in those provisions, and I think it would be a little slovenly not to correct that flaw at this stage, without prejudice to what we do on the Report stage. I hope hon. Members will agree that this further Amendment, which is in the nature of a relieving


Amendment and ought to have been in the Clause as originally drafted, had better be made now, and then we will look at the whole thing on the Report stage.

Amendment agreed to.

Colonel Sir George Courthope: I beg to move, in page 2, line 3o, at end, add:
(5) Subject to the provisions of this section the Commission shall have power to regulate their own procedure.
It seems to be desirable that a Commission of this kind should have a considerable measure of independence in arranging its own proceedings. A provision of the sort contained in this Amendment is not uncommon and I hope the Amendment will be accepted.

The Solicitor-General: I entirely sympathise with the feelings which animate my right hon. and gallant Friend in putting forward this Amendment, but as a matter of drafting and legislative practice I assure him that it is unnecessary.
Without any words, a body constituted as this body has been constituted can regulate its own procedure and the effect of the Amendment would be to detract from the general principle to which I, like my right hon. Friend, attach importance and possibly to throw doubt in the case of other similar bodies. Some who have interested themselves in the matter may have had in mind the special provisions in the First Schedule to the War Damage Act, but they are there because that Schedule not only deals with the procedure of the War Damage Commission but with its powers of delegation and, when you give powers of delegation, you have to deal with them specially. I would ask my right hon. Friend to accept it from me that these words are unnecessary, as the Commission will have complete power to regulate its procedure, and that their insertion would merely have the effect of throwing doubt on a principle which we all think is beneficent at present.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.45 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I beg to move, in page 2, line 30, at end, add:
(5) All proceedings before the Commission with respect to any matter referred to them under the subsequent provisions of this Act shall be held in public unless, in the case of any such proceedings, considerations of national security render it, in the opinion of

the Commission, advisable that the proceedings should be held in camera.
The object of this Amendment is to ensure that the proceedings of the Commission shall be held in public except when considerations of national security warrant their being held in secret. The acts of the Commission are going to affect thousands of people and, the greater the secrecy of discussion, the greater the public anxiety will be. The swifter the news of the Commission's proceedings percolates to the public the better it is. We ought to remember that these matters of acquisition of land do not affect the interested parties only. There are all sorts of individuals and bodies with transient or recurring interest in the land and its future and it is quite proper that they should be advised at the initial stage what the Commission is about. We really have a precedent in the Bill already for the Amendment. Clause 8 provides that the Minister shall proceed by public notice when contemplating action with regard to the acquisition of land.

Mr. Colegate: I hope the Government will accept the Amendment. It has a very important bearing on a subject which we mentioned before, namely, that everyone should have confidence in the Commission. There are a very large number of interests other than those directly concerned with the ownership of the land or factories concerned. There are those connected with commons and open spaces for example. It is important, especially in the earlier stages, that everyone concerned directly or indirectly should appreciate the principles on which the Commission is proceeding. I think it will be found that, if the proceedings are held in public, the work to be done by the Commission, which is very heavy, will eventually be got through much more quickly because those who have points to raise, and their professional advisers, will learn very quickly from a few public hearings the principles and methods by which the Commission is proceeding. In view of the fact that it is urgent that the Commission should get through its work as quickly as possible, because whole areas and large industries are affected, they should hold their meetings wherever possible in public in order that a general code of law, as it were, for dealing with these matters may be formulated, and then in the later stages the work will go through very much more quickly and easily.

The Solicitor-General: Again I have very great sympathy wtih the feelings that animate my hon. Friends but we want to look at the matter a little more closely. This is not exactly, and deliberately not exactly, the same as proceedings in a court of law. There is power for a public local inquiry to be held when the Commission thinks it appropriate, but I can envisage a large number of cases where the matter could be dealt with even by written representations and replies, and probably it will not be necessary to go any further than that, and of other cases where an informal discussion of five minutes with a representative of the Commission would clear matters up. We had that procedure in mind when considering analogous problems under the Town and Country Planning Act. It is valuable to have a flexible procedure so long as the Commission is master in its own house and can use the procedure which it thinks right. You might have a case of a factory being extended and proposals to buy the owner out. He might not want to have his private affairs discussed in public and it might be harmful to his interests. That occurs in many cases where there is nothing sinister about it. Proceedings in Income Tax matters before the General and Special Commissioners are kept private because they deal with private matters. If a matter is important, the Commissioners can bring it to the light of day but, where they do not think it necessary, I think that modicum of privacy ought to be given to people who desire it. So long as we have the undoubted, unquestioned right of the Commission to bring anything into public if it so desires, we should not prevent the greater flexibility which the present procedure can give.

Mr. Colegate: If the Commission desired to hear a case in public they could do so?

The Solicitor-General: Certainly.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The Bill provides for a local inquiry and I should be quite content if the Government accepted an Amendment that, where there was a local inquiry, it should be held in public, but it is not provided in the Bill. There is force in what my hon. and learned Friend has said about the necessity of acting in private in the interests of private individuals, but there is also some force in

holding a local inquiry in public so that members of the public, and Members of the House, may be fully informed of the proposals which Government Departments are bringing forward for the acquisition of land.

The Solicitor-General: It is extremely rare in my experience to find a local inquiry held in private. It is almost always, as far as I can remember, held in public, although my hon. Friend may have some example which has escaped me. My point is that that should be left to the Commission. If we get a good Commission and let them manage their own procedure, we can with confidence leave it to them that public rights will be regarded.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Dissolution of Commission.)

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 2, line 31, to leave out "The Treasury," and to insert "His Majesty."
Question, "That the words 'The Treasury' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
Question proposed, "That the words 'His Majesty' be there inserted."

Mr. Kirkwood: I should like the right hon. Gentleman to explain why he voluntarily surrenders this power in favour of His Majesty.

The Deputy-Chairman: This was all discussed just now. This is a consequential Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendment made.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 34, after "Order," insert "in Council".—[Sir I. Anderson.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

6.0 p.m.

CLAUSE 4.—(Land affected by Government war work or damaged by Government war use.)

The Deputy-Chairman: The first Amendment to this Clause which has been selected is that in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Ilford (Mr. G. Hutchinson), in page 2, line 44.

Major York: I have an Amendment in line 44, at end, insert:
or such right restrictive of the user of any land on which there are government war works as may be necessary in order to secure for the Crown the right to determine the use to which any such works may be put.
This Amendment is related to one in my name to Clause 8, Sub-section (5). If the Amendment to this Clause is not made, the Amendment to Clause 8 cannot be operated.

The Deputy-Chairman: If that is the case, it could be put in on Report, but the Amendment to Clause 8 will not necessarily be called.

Mr. Turton: Can you tell us, Mr. Williams, how wide can be the scope of the discussion on commons and footpaths generally on the Amendment you have called? That question arises on many other Clauses, and will it be in Order, in the discussion on this Amendment, to refer to Amendments on the same subject to other Clauses?

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think we should become involved in Amendments to other Clauses. We had better confine ourselves to the provisions of this Clause, which are fairly wide.

Mr. Turton: It will, then, be in Order at a later stage to discuss the question of commons on other Amendments, if they are selected?

The Deputy-Chairman: I am not saying anything about them to-night.

Mr. G. Hutchinson: In discussing my Amendment will it be in Order to discuss also the Amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison), in page 2, line 42, after "land," insert: "other than land of a local authority"?

The Deputy-Chairman: That Amendment was not selected.

Sir William Davison: Can it not be referred to in the discussion on the Amendment that has been called?

The Deputy-Chairman: The Amendment which has been selected is fairly wide and we can discuss a lot of these matters on it. It was selected with great consideration so as to give a reasonably wide discussion on a matter of great im-

portance. The question of local authorities will come in, not so much on this Amendment, as on the Amendment in the name of the Noble Lady the Member for Central Bristol (Lady Apsley), in page 2, line 48, at end, add:
(3) This Section shall not apply to land belonging to a local authority or to land belonging to a statutory undertaking for the purposes of its undertaking.
(4) In this Section "undertaking" includes any of the following undertakings, the carrying on of which is authorised by any public or private Act of Parliament or of any Order or scheme made under or defined by any such Act—

(a) railway, light railway, tramway, road transport, water transport, canal, inland navigation air navigation, dock, harbour, pier and lighthouse undertakings;
(b) undertakings for the supply of electricity, gas, hydraulic power, or water."

Mr. G. Hutchinson: I beg to move, in page 2, line 44, at end, insert:
Provided that nothing in this Act shall authorise—

(a) the acquisition of—

(i) any common or open space (as those expressions are respectively defined in and for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944);
(ii) any easement over or right restrictive of the user of any common or open space;
(iii) any land forming part of a public footpath or bridlepath; or

(b) the discharge or modification of any restriction as to the user of any common or open space

except by means of a compulsory purchase order made by any of the Ministers specified in Sub-section (2) of this Section and such order shall be provisional only and shall not have effect unless and until it is confirmed by Parliament.
This Amendment deals with one of the most important matters in this Bill. The question which is raised by it is whether the Bill should apply to land to which the public have access as a public open space. I will not enter into the various circumstances in which land may be available for the public as a public open space. There are a number of public Acts passed at different times in the last half century under which land has become what is sometimes called common land, and which is more accurately described in modern phraseology as public open spaces. The history of open spaces does not really concern us because the sole question is whether they should be subject to the power of acquisition which this Bill gives


to Government Departments. It is common knowledge that commons and open spaces of all sorts have been used during the war for the purposes of the war. In some cases they have been requisitioned and airfields have been constructed on them. In other cases camps and buildings and roads have been constructed upon them, while others have been used for training areas and matters of that sort.
It is of the greatest public importance that the area of land which is available in this country as public open spaces should not be curtailed. Therefore, any land which has passed into the possession of a Government Department during the war for the purposes of the war ought not to be permanently retained or converted to other purposes, but ought to be restored at the earliest possible moment to the public for the public purposes for which it was required. I can find nowhere in this Bill any satisfactory indication that it is intended to follow that necessary and essential course. Indeed, when one looks at the Bill and at the Amendments which have been put down by my right hon. Friend which appear to deal with this matter, the sense of apprehension as to the future of these open spaces is considerably enhanced. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give some indication of what the intentions of the Government are with regard to the open spaces which have passed under their control.
It may be that my right hon. Friend will give an assurance that these open spaces will be restored and returned to the public user from which they have been withdrawn during the war. I should not feel entirely satisfied with such an assurance, not because I entertain any doubt that my right hon. Friend or the Treasury harbour any intention to do otherwise than carry it out; but if an assurance elf that sort is forthcoming, and if it is not the intention that public open spaces should be permanently retained, it would be much more satisfactory from every point of view that these open spaces should be withdrawn from the ambit of the Bill altogether; or else that the safeguard which this Amendment proposes, namely, that they should be acquired only with the approval of Parliament, should be included in the Bill. These open spaces have been acquired in different ways under different statutory provisions, in some cases under

Acts of Parliament which deal with commons, and in some cases under Private Acts of Parliament. If this land is now to be taken away and diverted to other uses, it is not too much to ask that that should only be done with the approval of Parliament and should not be done at the instance of a Government Department. This is a matter which has aroused widespread interest both inside and outside this House. Indeed, it is not too much to say that it is probably this aspect of the Bill which has aroused the greatest apprehension in the public mind. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give us some assurance that no land which has been dedicated to the enjoyment of the public will now be permanently diverted to other uses.

Mr. Gallacher: A few minutes ago a Tory Member—that is, an intelligent Tory—made the remark that when anything in relation to the land was being discussed there were always a large number of hard faces on the Tory side. When this Amendment was moved, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), who has a suspicious mind, said to me, "What is behind this that makes the Tories so interested in common land?" I, too, have a suspicious mind, and I immediately realized that it was necessary to ask a question. When taxation on land was introduced the fellows who wanted to dodge taxation floated limited companies. I want to ask the Chancellor if there is a fair amount of land on which the owners allow a certain amount of liberty and which they can claim under this Amendment is common land, and thus prevent the use of it by the public?

6.15 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: I had contemplated intervening at this stage before I knew that a point was to be put by my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). I do not think I can undertake to interpret the Amendment on the assumption that it might be adopted and form part of the Bill. That is not a responsibility I can fairly be asked to undertake. What we are to discuss on this Amendment is the vastly important question of commons and open spaces in the ordinary sense of the term—lands dedicated to public use and enjoyment. I think that phrase pretty well covers the purpose which my hon. Friend who


moved this Amendment so persuasively has in his mind. He will probably agree with me. It is not a question here of land in private ownership, over which people may be allowed to walk or stray from time to time; it is land dedicated to public use and enjoyment. We have to realise that, as a consequence of the war, there are considerable areas of such land upon which works of various kinds have been constructed. Now we have to determine how far it is reasonable to go in order to secure the restoration of such lands for the purposes for which they were available before the war. That is the question in a nutshell.
I do, indeed, approach this question with a very sympathetic mind. I am bound to say, however, that I think the Amendment which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) has moved goes much too far. Its effect would be that however slight the interference with public amenity by any particular war work and however valuable, important and extensive the war work in question might be, it would be essential, so far as the Bill is concerned, that the land should be restored to its previous use. Perhaps the conception underlying the Bill is derived in part from the existing provisions of the law with regard to the acquisition of common land and similar open spaces by local authorities for public purposes. Such acquisition has certainly been hedged around with very important safeguards. I would call the attention of the Committee to the consideration that, in the case of the existing provisions of the law to which I have referred, the authority which is proposing to acquire land starts fresh, with some freedom of choice. There is no commitment of any kind already incurred. Here we are dealing with quite a different case, in which, for the public service during the war, war works have been erected upon common land.
I use the expression "common land" as a convenient term to cover other open spaces. That distinction seems to me to make a very material difference. Nevertheless, the Government from the outset have been concerned to ensure that proper consideration should be given to the preservation of open spaces and of public amenities. I would like, if I would not be out of Order, to indicate very briefly to the Committee the various respects in

which the Government have sought to make clear their solicitude about the public interest in those open spaces. In the first place, we have sought to lay down, quite specifically and beyond any possibility of question, that the Commission has a duty to consider the amenity and public aspects of transactions which come under their review. Further than that, we have provided specifically that local authorities, planning authorities and various societies concerned with commons and open spaces and so forth shall have a right of access to the Commission and a right of audience. We have provided that no common land shall be acquired under the Bill for the purpose of doing further work upon it in order to restore it to the public. The provision which originally appeared in Clause 6 (I, a) and which was wide enough to extend to commons and open spaces it is proposed to amend. Further, when we come to deal with works in regard to which the Board of Trade is to have power to give a conclusive—

Mr. Turton: On a point of Order. This is the very point I raised at the beginning of this Debate Are we entitled during the discussion of the Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend, to go into the other Clauses? I mentioned specifically Clause 8 (5) with which the Chancellor, of the Exchequer is now dealing. You, Mr. Williams, ruled that I was not entitled to do so Shall I now be entitled to follow on the same lines as the speech which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now making?

The Deputy-Chairman: The Chancellor of the Exchequer did use the words "if I would not be out of Order" and I was beginning to wonder how far I ought to allow the Chancellor of the Exchequer to proceed in this direction. No doubt, he will be able to keep his remarks to the Amendment under discussion, and to deal with the other points when the time comes.

Sir J. Anderson: I was not so much addressing myself to the particular Amendment, as seeking to give the Committee a general impression, an accurate impression, of the attitude of the Government towards this extremely important question. I had no desire whatever to challenge your Ruling, Mr. Williams, and every desire to keep strictly within it, but I feel at a certain disadvantage in


endeavouring to explain why the Government think that the Amendment on the Paper is unacceptable, as going much too wide, if I am not free to indicate in very general terms that the Government have gone very closely into the matter and have sought to provide safeguards which do, at any rate, go a certain way in the direction of protecting the interests with which the particular Amendment is mainly concerned. You must pull me up if you think I am going too far—but I have practically concluded what I wanted to say on this point.

The Deputy-Chairman: Perhaps it would be of assistance to the Committee if I said that this is how I understand the position: There is a series of Amendments, going off down different lines. In dealing with this Amendment, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was giving a picture not necessarily covering the whole canvas but pointing out, as he has just said, that the Government wish to deal with the matter and have made certain provisions. The matter which we have to decide is whether those provisions are sufficient or not. The right hon. Gentleman having made the statement that he has made, I suggest that as we are dealing with the various Amendments, we shall be able to consider whether each provision is adequate.

Mr. Colegate: May I appeal to you, Mr. Williams, to reconsider the point? We are entirely in sympathy with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but this seems to be a very important opportunity to discuss the general question. Otherwise we might be placed in very great difficulty, as these bits and pieces of Amendments come on for discussion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has dealt with the matter in a very wide way, and I now appeal to you to let us have a general discussion. It might save a great deal of time later on upon other Amendments.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am in the hands of the Committee, of course, and if the Committee wishes to have a very wide discussion, then obviously we can do so, if we do not discuss the matter again upon each Amendment in turn. I say, quite frankly, however, that it would, in my opinion, be better, in the interests of full discussion of the Bill, if we discussed the sidelines, if I may put it in that way, as we come to them. Although the Chan-

cellar has given his assurance that the matter is being dealt with, I, personally, unless the Committee are very strongly in favour of having a general discussion, would suggest that the Committee do not have a general discussion but a discussion on the particular Amendments, some of which come considerably later in the Bill.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is it not the case, Mr. Williams, that some hon. Members have been laying down the law to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that they are now trying to lay the law down to you?

Sir J. Anderson: Might I make a submission for your consideration, Mr. Williams? I can see a very clear distinction, in regard to references to subsequent Amendments which go into the merits of those Amendments. I was trying very carefully to avoid anything that would bear that interpretation and was not seeking to do more than to call attention to the fact that those Amendments were on the Paper and that, taken together, they provided the Government's alternative method of safeguarding this particular very important interest. If you will allow me to go on upon that line I will refrain scrupulously from going into the merits on any subsequent Amendment so that each Amendment can be discussed in as much detail as may be thought desirable when we come to it.

The Deputy-Chairman: That being, as I understand it, the general wish of the Committee, the Chancellor will put the position in a wide way, that the Government are meeting the case, and later the right will be conferred on individual Members to discuss their own particular line. That is what I have been trying to secure. It would be impossible to discuss Clause 8 and this Clause at the present time.

Sir J. Anderson: I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Williams, and I hope that I shall be able to keep my remarks strictly within the limits that you have indicated. The position of the Government is, in a word, that we do draw, as hon. Members supporting the Amendment draw, a very clear distinction between land which has been dedicated to the public use and enjoyment and land which is in ordinary private exclusive ownership. That is the fact, and I wish the Committee, if they will, to address themselves to this Amendment with that in view. I


have given to the Committee my reasons for thinking that the Amendment goes much further than is really consistent with the public interest, although I believe it to be the case that there are very few factories on common lands. I have been told that there is only one Ministry of Supply factory on common land. I know that there are other works, of a more or less extensive character, some of which might, without offence, be categorised as eyesores, some of which are comparatively harmless and some of which, I venture to say, actually add to the attraction of the landscape.

Captain Cobb: Can the right hon. Gentleman let us have one example?

6.30 p.m.

Sin J. Anderson: Some earth works which I can think of add considerably to the amenities of some districts. Perhaps it might be desired to preserve, as our forefathers have preserved, some suitable monuments of the period through which we have been passing. I do submit to the Committee that the proper course to take is to safeguard at every point where we can, by specific provision, the rights of the public in these common lands, but not by one stroke, by a sweeping Amendment of this kind, to remove from the scope of the Bill—because that is what the Amendment would do—all works, and not only all works but all rights, easements and rights of way whatever they may be. This Amendment is wide enough to cover all these matters which are dealt with later in the Bill in some elaborate provisions. I submit we should leave the Commission, constituted as we intend it shall be, of men of experience and reputation, commanding the public confidence, to consider, on the merits, each case in which the Government might propose, for one reason or another, to take into permanent possession any common land or open space on which war works have been erected. I feel bound, therefore, to say that in the view of the Government my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment is, for these reasons, unacceptable.

Mr. Loftus: I have listened with great interest to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but I must confess that he has not convinced me by his arguments against this Amendment. I remember many years ago fighting

to preserve the commons, and I was surprised by the intense, keen public interest shown in the question and the support given from all parties and all parts. I think in discussing this question of the commons we must remember what is in the background. There is in the public mind the memory of what this House has done in former times. We committed a great crime against the people of this country about 1840, by the seizure of about 5,000,000 acres of common land. That was a disaster to the people of England. I am sure that memory remains, and the people are desperately keen to keep the whole of the commons which they now possess.
I feel that my right hon. Friend has not met the argument which has been advanced on this Amendment. He said that this Amendment would prevent these essential properties from being acquired by the State. Surely it does not. This is the common method that has been adopted by Parliament since somewhere about 1840 and it is up to this Houe now to see that the remaining common lands are preserved. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has mentioned, although I cannot refer to them, various concessions which he is going to give in the future. Can he give an assurance that in accordance with the precedents of the past 50 years, if he takes so many acres of common land he will have compulsory powers and obligations, to acquire so many other acres, for the use and enjoyment of the public? This has been the procedure for many years. In the 1944 Town Planning Act, there is the obligation that if common land is taken away, other land is required to replace it. Let the right hon. Gentleman give me that assurance and I will withdraw my support from the Amendment. But if he cannot give that assurance, then if this Amendment goes to a Division, I shall vote for it.

Sir J. Anderson: Might I just say that the matter which has just been referred to by my hon. Friend could very well be the subject of a special Amendment, and the Government would certainly then deal with that particular matter? I cannot go into it now, but the Government would be perfectly ready, at the proper time, to meet the challenge. There really is nothing between us in the matter of principle, but there is essentially a difference as to method. May I now, as I


know that other business is in contemplation, suggest we should report Progress at this stage?

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION BILL

Order far Second Reading read.

6.42 p.m.

The Minister of Aircraft Production (Sir Stafford Cripps): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill is introduced for the purpose of carrying out the undertaking given by the Government to the House at the time that the announcement was made as regards the setting up of a new Ministry of Civil Aviation. It was stated at that time that my Noble Friend who is the Minister of Civil Aviation would not immediately be endowed with the necessary powers, as legislation would be required, but that the Government would, at the earliest possible moment, introduce a Bill in order that those necessary powers might be given to him for carrying on his office and his Department. I think I may say that that announcement met with very general approval from all sides of the House and also throughout the country. Since that date my Noble Friend has held the position of Minister of Civil Aviation, though there has been no Ministry of Civil Aviation. He has been functioning, as was explained to the House, by arrangement with the Secretary of State for Air, as his deputy or agent in carrying out the responsibilities which Parliament has placed by its various Acts upon the Secretary of State, and which must remain with him, until the new legislation setting up the Ministry of Civil Aviation has been passed through this House. It is this decision that we now ask the House to make, to provide the proper machinery in order that this Ministry may come into full operation.
Perhaps it would be convenient if I recalled to the House in a few words, the legislative history of civil aviation in this country. The Air Navigation Act of 1920, which was really the foundation of legislation on civil aviation, by Section 6

placed all matters in connection with air navigation—a very wide phrase—under the Air Council, which had been constituted, as the House will recollect, by the war-time Act of 1917. There the power remained until the Act of 1936, when, I think one might say, there was a general feeling both in the House and the country, that some better arrangement was required. That led to alterations being made in the Air Navigation Act of 1936. By Section 23 of that Act the powers which have hitherto been vested in the Air Council were transferred, so far as civil aviation were concerned, to the Secretary of State for Air, as such, that is to say in his individual capacity. As the House knows a special directorate-general of the Air Ministry, was set up in order to deal with civil aviation, as part of the responsibility of the Secretary of State, and separate from his military responsibilities.

Mr. Montague: Was that in 1936?

Sir S. Cripps: Yes, in 1936.

Mr. Montague: But the directorate was set up in 1930.

Sir S. Cripps: Yes, but in 1936 the directorate was set up with direct responsibility to the Secretary of State for Air in order that matters could be put on a better basis. Under the Act of 1936 there was no widening of the powers. The powers remained as they had been in 1920, but there was this transfer of the authority from the Air Council to the Secretary of State.
Subsequently it became clear in many people's minds, that the arrangement was still not wholly satisfactory and criticisms were cast upon it from several quarters, including some commissions and committees then sitting. However, in subsequent Acts dealing with civil aviation, such as the British Overseas Airways of 1939, the Secretary of State was named as the responsible authority for civil aviation. Now it has been decided, as I have said, to ask the House to regularise the change over of these functions of the Secretary of State, that is in all matters connected with civil aviation, to the Minister of Civil Aviation. The Bill itself, of course, is in the form of what one might call a machinery Bill. It is a common form for setting up a new Department, and there


is very little I need say to the House about the particular provisions.
The first Clause is, of course, the important one. Apart from the transfer of the functions of the Secretary of State as they now exist, it does define the functions which the Air Minister will be charged with by Parliament. They fall under four heads. He is charged with the duty of organising, carrying out and encouraging measures—which is the phraseology used—for, first of all, the development of civil aviation. That one might define as the operational side connected with the development of air lines and such matters as that. Secondly, he is charged with the designing, development and production of civil aircraft, that is the constructional and research side—I will say a word or two in a moment as regards the relationship with my Department in that matter; thirdly, "the promotion of safety and efficiency" in the use of civil aircraft. That, of course, is the safety side, and one hopes it will be very largely regulated by international regulations, when those are finally decided upon. Lastly, there is "research into questions relating to air navigation," that is, the navigational aspect. So, under these four headings, all the necessary duties in looking after civil aviation are covered, and are conferred upon the Minister by Clause 1.
The Minister's plan as regards the operational side have recently been placed before the House and the country in the White Paper, which was recently discussed, and therefore I will not refer to any of these, nor would it be relevant to this matter of setting up the Ministry. I would like to say a word about the second point, the responsibility for "the designing, development and production of civil aircraft," the constructional side, so as to make clear what are the relations which are contemplated between my Department and the Department of Civil Aviation.

Mr. Montague: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman leaves that point, may I point out that the White Paper has not yet been the subject of any formal discussion in this House?

Sir S. Cripps: I did not suggest that it had been the subject of formal discussion. I said it had been discussed.

Mr. Bowles: And that the Minister was going ahead with his plans.

Sir S. Cripps: No, I did not say that. I said that the plans had been developed in the White Paper. I did not say that the Minister was going forward with them. I would like to say a word or two about what I call the constructional and research side. So long as my Department remains in existence, and that, I imagine, will anyhow be until the end of the war, it is the intention that I should be responsible for the design, development and production of civil aircraft, in accordance with the requirements put forward by the Minister of Civil Aviation. It will be the task of that Ministry to look after the interests of the operators, and to coordinate their needs. During such time as circumstances render it necessary, as they do at present, for the Government to place orders for civil aircraft, such orders will be given by my Ministry on behalf of the Ministry of Civil Aviation. Eventually, as is envisaged in paragraph 41 of the White Paper, the operators will no doubt wish to buy their aircraft direct from the constructors, and the new Ministry will, of course, desire to keep itself informed and interested in that very important matter of the provision of civil aircraft. Under this Bill it is given the power to do so.
The second Sub-section of Clause 1 lays it down that in the matter of the acquisition and disposal of aircraft, engines and equipment the Minister shall consult the Treasury. That is merely to maintain the proper financial control over the actions of the Ministry of Civil Aviation. Clause 2 effects the transfer, of which I have spoken, of all the functions of the Secretary of State for Air with regard to civil aviation, and set out in the Schedule are the various Acts and Sections to which that transfer relates. The House will notice in that Schedule that in a few cases certain powers and duties are not completely transferred, but are to be shared between the new Minister of Civil Aviation and the Secretary of State. Such cases are, for example, the investigation of accidents and matters of that sort, where the military side of aviation may be equally concerned with the civil side, so that both Ministers must have the necessary powers under these provisions. But apart from these particular instances the transfer of powers will be absolutely complete. That covers the powers of the


Secretary of State under the various Railway Air Transport Acts passed by this House in 1929 and under the British Overseas Airways Act, 1939. The rest of the Bill merely comprises the formal Clauses necessary to setting up a new Ministry, including the payment of the salaries of the Minister and his staff, and the payment of the authorised expenses of the Ministry.
That covers the whole of this short Bill, and I trust the House will be prepared to give it a quick passage, so that my Noble Friend may have the greater facilities which he will derive from a properly constituted Ministry of his own in carrying on the good work he has been doing, and so that he may be able to build up what will become, I think, a small though nevertheless efficient Department, which he must have if we are really to get ahead rapidly and efficiently with the solution of the many outstanding problems of civil aviation. Although the Bill may be regarded as a short, and perhaps not very important one, in one sense, being merely of a machinery character, I feel it will provide us with a much firmer foundation on which to build the future supremacy which we must get in civil aviation.

6.53 p.m.

Sir Oliver Simmonds: The issue before the House falls into two parts, first whether civil aviation should be removed from the control of the Secretary of State for Air, and secondly, whether the Ministry of Civil Aviation should be established. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Aircraft Production has told the House that civil aviation has been the responsibility of the Air Ministry, or the Air Minister, ever since the inauguration of civil air transport after the end of the last war, it behoves the House to give thought, for one or two moments, to the prudence of this change. As one casts one's eye over the years since 1918 one will find, regretfully, that the history of civil aviation in this country has been the history of a series of inquests. There has never been a period, I believe, when this House felt that all was well with British civil aviation. In the early '20's we had the Hamblin Committee of Investigation, when the original air lines operating from this country to the Continent were amalgamated in Imperial Airways. Then we had the Gorell Committee in the '3o's, and ulti-

mately the Cadman Committee in the late '3o's, as the result of which, and with doubtful wisdom, this House decided to establish the British Overseas Airways Corporation in place of Imperial Airways and British Airways.
In the light of the magnificent record of the Air Ministry as regards military aviation it will be manifest that this situation could not have occurred if the same persons who were mindful of Service aviation then had also had time to give to civil aviation. The tragedy of British civil aviation between the wars has been that military aviation demanded all that was available of the thought and effort of the best people in the Air Ministry, so that they had not time and energy for constructive effort in civil aviation. Secondly, and I very much regret to say this, those who were jealous of air development in this country by some other Department were never willing that civil air transport should pass under the aegis of, say, the Ministry of Transport or some other suitable civil Department. Thus air transport had to stay within the four walls of the Air Ministry, when the Air Ministry really had no great interest in it, simply because they did not want it put into the hands of any other Department.
The whole structure of civil aviation has been one of a very insignificant Department compared with the main Departments represented by the Air Members on the Air Council, although, as my right hon. and learned Friend has said, it was improved in 1936. The Director-General of Civil Aviation was never a member of the Air Council, and could never bring his own responsibilities to bear upon the Council. He had to move through the Under-Secretary of State who was, to use the phrase, "charged with responsibility for civil aviation." But as everybody knows, the Under-Secretary has for a very long time had his hands over-full with Service matters. Thus we have gone from bad to worse. In the late '20's this country led the world as regards air transport. The Americans had not yet developed the machines which are now well known throughout the world. They were, for example, flying with Fokker monoplanes originally purchased from Holland, and manufactured in America, Ford transports and so on. We had our opportunity then of doing in the world of air transport exactly what America had


done in the world of road transport, of producing civil air liners which would have sold throughout the whole world. We lost that opportunity, and America has taken advantage of our folly. Therefore I think that every hon. Member would agree with me that the time has come when, if we are to try to recover something of what we have lost to America, we should start anew as regards the constitutional control of civil air transport in this country.
I feel that the Air Ministry might well surrender its control of civil air transport with good grace. But when I suggest that, I would like to say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air that he would do well to remember that this House is not removing from his control the whole of air transport, because one of the follies of the Air Council in the '30's was that not only did it not appreciate the importance of civil air transport, but it did not even appreciate the importance of military air transport.
The history of this war shows abundantly that whether you are operating on a front not so many hundreds of miles from your base or on fronts thousands of miles from your base air transport is equally essential. My hon. Friends opposite raised the question of military air transport last evening, and I do not want to trespass on that ground again; but it is important, seeing that the Air Ministry have been so unwilling to develop air transport from a civil and military point of view, that we should remind the Secretary of State for Air that, when responsibility for civil air transport is taken from him in future, it behoves him to put double effort into the development of the military side.

Mr. Montague: I do not think that that ex-parte statement ought to be allowed to pass. I myself was present at quite a number of discussions at the Air Ministry upon the subject of a Transport Command or something like it. The question of military transport was certainly under consideration in 1930.

Sir O. Simmonds: Of course, I know that the Air Ministry went on talking about this, week in and week out; what we complain of is that the Air Ministry never did anything. I am surprised that my hon. Friend, of all people, should claim some righteousness for what he did

at the Air Ministry. We wanted results at the Air Ministry. I am amazed that he has the audacity to make that claim. So much for the position of the Air Ministry when we relieve it of this responsibility. I think it is fair to say this. The Air Ministry, in its control of civil aviation, did one brilliant thing. That was the establishment under the joint aegis of the Post Office, under our late lamented friend Sir Kingsley Wood, and the Air Ministry, of the Empire air mails scheme. That was a stroke of genius. If we had had half a dozen more such strokes British civil aviation would not have been where it is to-day. Let us give honour where honour is due, and say that that was the sort of spirit we hoped to see permeating the whole of British air transport. I come to the conclusion that this change, if we can set up a sane and wise constitution for the new Ministry of Civil Aviation, would be in the national interest.
What is the more positive step? I do not want to go into the Bill Clause by Clause. It manifests what will be the general outlook of the new Ministry, at any rate in its early years. In the Debate a week or two ago on the White Paper—without a formal Resolution, as the hon. Gentleman has said—hon. Members from all sides protested against the Minister intruding himself in too many places into the day-to-day operation of civil air transport. Therefore, it is with some alarm that I read, in Clause 1, that the Minister is
charged with the general duty of organising, carrying out and encouraging measures for the development of civil aviation.
I hoped that the Minister was going to avoid trying to carry out these measures, and would invite other organisations under his control and sponsorship to develop civil aviation in accordance with the policy of the Government of the day. I hope that the Minister will again consider the point made from all sides in the recent Debate, that he should trust those whom he appoints, or to whose appointment he agrees, and not interfere with the day-to-day operation of civil aviation.
Now we come to the political issue. Is this a Conservative Measure or is it a Socialist Measure, or is it a fair and reasonable compromise? The other day I expressed the hope that it might be regarded possibly as some compromise which both the major parties would honour, and which for a reasonable period


they would not try to disturb. But each of the hon. Gentlemen opposite who spoke, as far as I can recall, was at pains to say that in his opinion this was a Conservative Measure to which he took every exception.

Mr. Montague: Not this Measure.

Sir O. Simmonds: No; they were speaking broadly about the White Paper. But not one of them indicated that he would support this as a middle course, which would take civil air transport out of party politics—which I believe is the most vital step that needs to be taken. I have reconsidered my point of view in the light of what hon. Gentlemen opposite said. When I took the view that it was a middle course, I was not thinking too quantitatively, as to whether it was 80 per cent. in one direction or 20 per cent. in the other. I was hoping that, as the Minister had been able to strike a compromise with his colleagues in the Cabinet of all parties, this House might feel it prudent to accept the compromise, and decide honourably to give it a chance.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to ask a question, which I asked in the discussion on the White Paper. If the hon. Member claims that this is a middle course, is he, or is any of his colleagues, prepared, as a Conservative, to advocate that civil aviation should be completely in the hands of private owners, with no kind of control whatever by the Government?

Sir O. Simmonds: If my hon. Friend will listen a little longer he will see exactly where I place the course that is recommended by the Government. The first question that any hon. Member would review is, To what extent are the Corporation suggested by the Government going to be privately-owned or State-owned? Any hon. Member who examines this question fairly will see that B.O.A.C., 100 per cent. State-owned, at any rate so far as the early future is concerned, is going to run something like 80 per cent. of the British air lines of the world. The line to Latin America, manifestly, is relatively light, in traffic and mileage, compared with the great organisation that B.O.A.C. will have; likewise, all the lines of the European corporations will be short in relation to those of the B.O.A.C. Therefore, I feel entitled to say, as a Conservative, that the Minister's proposals would substantially, if we allowed this

Ministry to be set up, nationalise 90 per cent. of the air transport of this country. We are entitled to inquire whether this is a reasonable compromise, or whether it is not becoming essentially a Socialist Measure for the nationalisation of British air transport.

Sir S. Cripps: This Bill has nothing on earth to do with any such matter. It is merely to set up a Ministry. What the Ministry does is a matter for subsequent debate. This is merely a machinery Bill.

Mr. Tree: May I ask your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? I understood that this was a short enabling Bill, for setting up a Minister and a Ministry of Civil Aviation. Are we to be allowed to debate very widely the whole subject of the White Paper?

Sir O. Simmonds: May I suggest that this is not solely for that purpose? It is a question of whether civil aviation should be taken out of the hands of one Ministry and put into the hands of another Ministry, when the policy which the second Ministry will adopt has been precisely stated by His Majesty's Government in the White Paper. It is not correct to regard this as being purely a transfer from one Ministry to another. We have been told specifically what the new Ministry will do.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): In reply to the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Tree), I may say that this is clearly a machinery Bill, and it will not be in Order, on the Motion that the Bill be read a Second time, to go into detail on the policy that will follow. The Amendment raises rather a wider question than the Motion, and this matter might then be raised.

Sir O. Simmonds: Is it your intention to call the Amendment? If so that will help us considerably.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understand that it is the intention to call the Amendment in due course.

Sir O. Simmonds: If it is the intention to call the Amendment, and if it is your view that these matters can be better raised on the Amendment, I certainly will be very happy to follow that course.

Mr. Montague: Does your Ruling, Sir, prejudice a full and formal Debate on the White Paper at some future period?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Not at all; that is a separate matter, which will be dealt with when the occasion arises.

Sir O. Simmonds: If we are to be able to deal with some of these essential matters when my hon. Friend moves his Amendment, I am quite content to leave the points that I wished to make. But I would like to emphasise that sometimes when we set up a new Ministry we have to vote on a blank cheque. That, fortunately, is not the case to-day. We know fairly well what the Ministry proposes to do. Although I have some misgiving, as I have already indicated, with regard to the policy that is to be followed, I feel on balance that we should be wise if we agreed to the transfer of these powers from the Air Ministry to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, but always insisting that there are in the White Paper certain proposals which need ameliorating from the Conservative point of view before they would be sufficiently acceptable on this side of the House.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. Bowles: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this Rouse declines to proceed with the Second Reading of a Bill which, whilst establishing a National Minister of Civil Aviation in this country, fails to provide for the future organisation, ownership and control of civil aviation upon the widest possible basis, namely, a world basis, in order to ensure that this service should be removed once and for all from the sphere of private and national rivalry and competition.
I put this Amendment on the Order Paper because I am determined on every possible occasion to advocate what I regard as the only possible solution to this question of the future of civil aviation. I have spoken on this subject over and over again, but I do not apologise for doing so again to-night. All through the last two or three years, as the war has drawn slowly to its close, it has been obvious that there have been interests—vested or would-be vested—who are anxious to get hold of their share of the future development of civil aviation. The problem has always been approached from the point of view of the operator and not from the point of view of the user. We in the House of Commons, as far as lies in our power, have to provide the very best possible service to the user, and there-

fore instead of approaching this matter from the point of view of the operator I approach it from that of the user. It will very soon be possible to fly from any one place to any other place in the world in 2½ days. It is possible to do it in three days now. One hundred years ago it took three days to go from London to York. I mention that because it shows the great rapidity with which the world is contracting from the point of view of travel. Surely, when we have what obviously must be a world service, and when the world can be flown round in five days or less, it is foolish to try and organise this matter on anything less than a world basis. I have read many speeches in another place, and I have heard many speeches in this House, in which the interests of the shipping and railway companies and others have been pressed and, as it seems to me from the White Paper, pressed successfully. The White Paper now visualises the handing over of certain spheres of civil aviation to the shipping and railway companies.
We also hear from time to time in speeches in this House and in another place statements similar to the closing words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister of Aircraft Production, that we must maintain and ensure our supremacy. The other day I was reading a report of a Debate in the United States of America, in which Senator after Senator was getting up and making the same kind of demand, that the United States should be top in aviation. I have read about various Noble Lords getting up one after another in another place and demanding that this country should be supreme in the air as it was on the seas. It is obvious that it is a mathematical impossibility for every country to be top. Therefore, we have from the beginning—we had it at the Chicago Conference, in fact—a struggle even between Allies during a war to determine which kind of organisation and political policy should be applied to this matter which, as I have emphasised, is one to be solved on a world basis only. The Americans adopt the attitude that they should be able to have complete mastery so far as lies within their power to snatch it. According to the Minister, we are anxious to do exactly the same. I suppose other countries, if not at once, then as soon as they feel they are strong


enough to do so, will also enter the competition. There is a nice set-up which springs from either private or national greed but which has no regard whatever to the general welfare of the ordinary person in the street or the ordinary person who wants to use the aircraft either for his own travel or for the purpose of conveying goods from one part of the world to the other.
I have advocated, as I have said before, that this organisation must be carried out on a world basis, and I do not believe there is anything really like the difficulty which is alleged to exist in securing agreement on this point among the ordinary people in this country, in America or in other parts of the world. The only opposition to the Labour Party's policy which I am now advocating comes from operators or from people who want to operate. It does not come from the ordinary person, who is quite as interested in this matter, from the point of view of organisation and the preservation of peace, as anybody in this House.
What we have to do—and I press that this must be done as soon as possible before interests become vested, because it is always more difficult to divest them than to prevent them becoming vested—is to arrange the setting up of a corporation which I might call World Airways Incorporated, or Limited—I do not mind—and that body should be responsible for running all air services throughout the world. I do not apologise for going into some detail in this case, because its advocacy should never be allowed to die. There should be appointed a board of directors consisting of persons selected because of their ability to provide the best possible service, because of their international outlook, and there should be no pressure or wire-pulling to influence any of their decisions except those which they feel are made in the best interests of this service of civil aviation. In order to ensure that the best possible people are appointed, we cannot trust Governments either in this country or the United States or any other country where vested interests are strong, because we have seen how even this Government seems to kowtow to the pressure which has been brought to bear by private interests. The directors of this board or corporation should be appointed by the Governments of the smaller nations such as Denmark,

Sweden, Switzerland and so on, and not necessarily their own nationals. They should be persons chosen by those Governments, who would choose the very best people from all over the world. I am certain from my experience before the war at Geneva that it is possible to find men of sufficient good will, ability and international mindedness who would put the interests of the service which they are to perform above any other consideration whatsoever, either political or national.
Then we would have to arrange about the finance. I do not think there would be any difficulty at all in making an appeal to any person or company in the world for the subscription of the necessary capital, because the interest could be fixed at an attractive rate. I would make it trustee stock and I would guarantee that it would pay. Then I would rely upon the directors to appoint the very best pilots and buy the very best machines in the world, and not necessarily those that come from any particular country because it happens to be strong but because it happens to be able to produce the best aircraft. Then I would arrange that this service should be run to some extent by delegation; as I have put it once before, the corporation should be the head office, but I see no objection to zones of the world being run under what I might call branch offices.
To my mind, this is a most important proposal, and although it may sound idealist I can assure the House that sometimes the ideal solution is the only real and practical one. In any other direction, if one departs once from these first principles, one gets into the kind of mess that was so obvious to the world at Chicago. If one tries to depart from providing a world service organised by a world corporation one will find that one is compromising, and as soon as one compromises one finds very soon that one's whole standing and status will have disappeared. I believe that the setting up of this Ministry on a national basis, as proposed in this Bill, is a step in the wrong direction, because it is just as bad to have Ministers struggling for their national chosen instruments in world congresses or in the world of competition, as it is to have sheer private enterprise.
I submit to my right hon. Friend and to the Government that the only possible way in which this service can be properly


organised in order to ensure that it will not become a menace to mankind but a boon, is to organise it as a service and not as something out of which certain people can get their share. I find that people who hear this idea are interested in it. I am told that it might be difficult to get agreement from the United States of America. I do not see any reason why, because it is difficult, one should not go on pressing for the idea and fighting for its adoption. Almost every idea that is good starts in a minority, and perpetual propaganda, argument and pressing are generally necessary before it is adopted by the majority. This idea is not so unacceptable to world opinion as may be thought. The Governments of Australia and New Zealand agreed, at Canberra at the beginning of last year, to internationalisation of all trunk routes. That is the policy also of the Party on this side of the House. It is also the policy this Party will itself pursue when it gets into power after the next General Election. We hope that this matter will be put into operation when a Labour Government comes into office. I warn anybody who thinks that now is the time to get in.
It is true that a certain amount of legislation may be necessary to repeal the B.O.A.C. Act before any shipping or railway companies can operate abroad. Other legislation may be necessary—I do not know. I would not be at all surprised if the shipping companies have not already prepared. I know that many of them have been to the Chancery Court and got their objects changed, so that they may have the right and power to run civil aviation. The railway companies may have to have special legislation to enable them to do so, but I have not looked closely into the legal position. Let us take the case of the shipping company. I doubt very much whether repeal of the B.O.A.C. Act is not all that would be necessary to enable them to start with their traffic and service at once. People who are bold enough to think that the policy outlined in the White Paper by the Government is the policy to be followed in the next few years, and who act accordingly by way of investments and so on, are, I believe, taking a risk against which I am warning them at this moment, because we, on this side of the House, regard this matter with the very greatest concern.
We know that civil aviation can be a great boon to mankind, but we know that it can also be something terribly bad, if not organised properly. It can be the cause of the next world war. All the time we see struggles going on, even in war time, between Allies as to what share they shall have. I beg the House to appreciate that, however conservative-minded people may be, however much a new idea may be anathema to them, sometimes, in the interests of themselves and their children and the general welfare of mankind, they need to sink some of their prejudices and approach a matter of this kind with an open mind. I know that certain people have very definite ideas on general principles, and that my proposal to-day offends them as being counter to those principles. But how far are their principles the result of their desires, of their personal interests, or of the interests of the people whom they try to serve, and how far have they come to this conclusion by the honest consideration of the real merits of the proposal?
I know that certain hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House argue that competition is a good thing. Well, we do not really have much competition in traffic. I remember talking to a gentleman, who must be nameless, but who happens to be chairman of a company which has an air service, I think, round Australia. He had been talking about the benefits of competition; he had also got the Australian Government's consent to run his service. I said to him, "What would be your view if the Government gave another air line the right to compete with you? Would you like that?" He said that, of course, he would not. The so-called merit of competition is an argument used in the 20th century, to try to back up ideas which flourished best in the 19th century. Competition is a thing which, by its very nature, comes to an end, on the principle of "Dog does not eat dog." No railway or shipping companies are going to compete with one another for very long. Sooner or later, they are going to say to one another, "Is this not very short-sighted; cannot we get together and reduce the number of trains or ships, instead of both sending our trains or ships half-full? Why should we not pool our receipts and buy up the rights of any other operators in competition with us?" That has been the history of industrial development in this


country and other places in the last 100 years. The competition argument is used over and over again, but the people who use it are those who do not believe in competition at all. They imagine that, by using an argument of that kind, they can easily—

Mr. Speaker: We are discussing the Bill, and the hon. Member must not go into an academic discussion.

Mr. Bowles: I am sorry, Sir, but the case I was trying to advocate was that of the ownership and control of civil aviation by a complete world monopoly. The argument used against me in this House before has been based on the merits of competition, but I will not go further into it, in view of your Ruling. In conclusion, I would appeal to hon. Members, if there is any possible chance of converting them, to think of this matter as a world service, and to ask themselves, even if they do not accept my view, what chance have the railway companies of this country to compete with Pan-American Airways? In any case, competition will not last very long. If it is not possible to convert hon. Members here, it is possible to convert people who have not any particular interest except that of seeing the best thing done. I am sure that the public, if they knew the danger involved in the case of those opposed to me, and the merits and benefits that may arise from the case I am trying to advocate, if it is adopted by the world, would agree with me, and not with the policy which the Government seem likely to pursue. If it is not possible to convert this House, I appeal above the heads of the House and above the heads of the Government, to people outside, in the hope that some of my words will get through and will be borne in mind when the next General Election comes along.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. McGhee: I beg to second the Amendment.
I want to congratulate my hon. Friend on his advocacy of something which now seems very far off—a world organisation to remove civil aviation from the sphere of private and national rivalry and competition. I think he is travelling a little fast, but I hope people outside will pay some attention to the reasons which he has given for advocating this policy. We, in the Labour Party, are not opposed to

the setting up of a national Ministry, because we desire a national Ministry, not to control civil aviation, but to bring civil aviation under direct public ownership. I second this Amendment because I believe that it is the first step towards securing civil aviation on a world basis. Actually, Mr. Speaker, when you called my hon. Friend to Order, I thought he was attempting to show that there was no such thing as free competition in the control of civil aviation in this country now, and that no such free competition will be allowed after the proposals of the White Paper have been put into operation and this Ministry has been created. Free competition would mean that anybody could enter into the industry, but, actually, the setting up of this Ministry and the terms of the White Paper itself specifically exclude free competition.
What it really means is that the gigantic combines that will enter into this matter, for a time competing between themselves in this country, and for a time competing with their rivals overseas, will, in the long run, under the private ownership of the industry, eventually form themselves into some kind of cartel to fleece the public in, all countries. What my hon. Friend is seeking to do is to establish. the industry, first, under the Ministry, and then to provide that that Ministry should go to other Ministries all over the world, and come to an international agreement for the control of the air. That is the policy that we are seeking to pursue.

7.42 p.m.

Captain Peter Macdonald: I have been listening with great interest to the speeches of the mover and seconder of this Amendment. What amazes me, in the attitude of the Labour Party in this House towards the question of civil aviation, is the large number of voices with which they speak. The mover of the Amendment objected to the appointment of the Ministry, because it did not mean the international organisation of civil aviation. He objected to a Ministry that did not accept that principle. The seconder of the Amendment, however, thinks a Ministry necessary, but seems to object to it because it is confined to private enterprise. I accept this Bill and the White Paper for the reason that this White Paper was a Cabinet document, supported by the War Cabinet.

Mr. Silverman: It was not accepted by the House.

Captain Macdonald: Whose view are we to follow in this matter?

Mr. Silverman: The hon. and gallant Member will not overlook the fact that the discussion on the White Paper was a general discussion in the House, when no Motion was put and the House expressed no opinion whatever about it.

Captain Macdonald: The White Paper was put before the House as a White Paper, by the War Cabinet, as a basis for future legislation on civil aviation, and, therefore, it must have been acceptable to the representatives of the Labour Party in the War Cabinet. Otherwise, I cannot see how it ever came before this House. I rise to support this Bill because I think that a new Ministry is a necessary step in the right direction. I have advocated for some time the divorce of civil aviation from the Air Ministry because I thought, and have thought for many years, that the Air Ministry and the Air Council in their outlook and their general experience are not qualified to deal with civil aviation or civil air transport. I would be the last in this House or in the country to cast any reflection whatever on the Air Council for carrying out all their rightful functions. We have every reason to be proud and thankful for what they have done, but when it comes to the transportation of passengers, and mail and goods, consider that to be an entirely different function from that of the Air Council.
I have envisaged on more than one occasion in this House what I consider to be the proper set-up for the Ministry of Civil Aviation in the future. We have far too many Ministries at present and I would like to see at least half a dozen of them removed from the landscape at the earliest possible moment. I do not think that this is the time to establish new ones, except temporarily. I envisage the proper set-up to be a Ministry of Transportation which embodies, as the Ministry of War Transport does to-day, road and rail transport and shipping and also air transport, with one Minister in this House and Under-Secretaries to cover the other services. The question of transportation is one question and air transport is only one aspect of it, and they must be very closely related. It is certainly more easy

to run a Ministry embodying all these services working together than to have them probably fighting each other, as has been the case in the past.
Therefore, I hope that in accepting this Bill it does not mean that we are to be saddled with another complete Department in the future, except in the direction I have indicated. I also welcome the appointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins). Though I very much miss his rugged personality on this side of the House, I sincerely hope that his acceptance of his new post does not mean that he has accepted wholeheartedly the White Paper which came before the House the other day. I object to that White Paper for quite different reasons from those put forward by hon. Members above the Gangway on this side of the House, but I do not consider this to be the proper time to discuss the White Paper. The Minister has a good deal of work to do to develop the Ministry and to get research and development of civil aircraft going at the earliest possible moment. There is one point in the Bill which says that certain functions still remain with the Secretary of State for Air and that he has to do with the question of the ordering of civil aviation aircraft.

Sir S. Cripps: No.

Captain Macdonald: I consider it important that although the Ministry of Civil Aviation is divorced from the Air Ministry, they should work very closely in that connection. I will tell the House why. If we are ever to compete, for instance, with America in the development of transport aircraft, we must develop it in a big way as they do, and we must order machines in very large quantities and produce them as economically as possible. There is no use in ordering aircraft in driblets and expecting to produce them economically. Therefore, on the question of transport, whether it be the Transport Command transporting troops or military, or the transporting of civilians, it requires very much the same type of aircraft and there is no reason why they should not be standardised. In that way you can order mass produced aircraft and have them produced faster and cheaper, and better perhaps, than if you take them piecemeal. If we are going to get into this civil aviation business, it is of vital importance that we should place our orders now, settle on a type or


two and get them into production at the earliest possible moment on as large a scale as possible. We can only do that by ordering large quantities. Therefore, you will require far more planes in order to get your mass production than civil aviation is going to require, certainly for a time, unless you are able to sell the aircraft abroad. The Air Ministry are certain to require a great many transport planes and can give large orders for mass production to get them on an even flow at an economical price. That is one point I wanted to mention.
There is no other reason why we should object to the Bill at this stage, as long as the Minister, or the Under-Secretary, does not consider that the House accepts the White Paper placed before it last week as being the final word on the future of civil aviation. As an hon. Member said at the outset, we on this side of the House accepted it at first because we thought it was a reasonable compromise, and as such we were prepared to accept it. Now we are told by our friends above the Gangway that it is not a compromise at all and that we got the best side of the bargain. That is not the view that we take. We think that we have been "sold out," because it is not acceptable to the Labour Party and it is certainly not beneficial to anybody who is a party to it to-day. I cannot see how shipping companies and rail companies are ever going to oppose nationalisation if they accept the principle of monopoly that is laid down in the White Paper. Although I was one of the first to advocate that they should be brought into civil aviation because of certain things that they could contribute towards it, I never for one moment thought they would be expected to be tied up to monopolies on a nationalised basis. That is something we will discuss at a later stage when the Bill comes before the House. All I wish to do to-night is to welcome this Bill as a step in the right direction and I hope it will get through its final stages at the earliest possible moment in order that the Ministry can get on with its work.

7.54 P.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I do not like this Bill and I do not like the Amendment. The Minister is wrong when he says that it is a machinery Bill and a machinery Bill only. It is not only a machinery Bill; it is a deliberately limiting

Bill. The first Clause tells you that a Minister shall be appointed:
who shall be charged with the general duty of organising, carrying out and encouraging measures for the development of civil aviation.
Who is going to get the benefit of this work to be carried out by the Minister? The nation? No, not the nation.

Sir Edward Campbell: Who is then?

Mr. Gallacher: The railway companies and the shipping companies. Those who are in control of civil aviation in accordance with the White Paper will get all the advantages of the work which is carried out by the Minister. The Bill carefully limits the Minister to assisting the companies running civil aviation. There is nothing in the Clause that entitles or enables the Minister to run civil aviation on behalf of the nation, and it is said it is a machinery Bill. That will not do. The Minister knows better than that. It is very carefully drawn in order to put the brake on anything in the nature of an advance for the people themselves, through the Government, to get control of their own affairs. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain Macdonald) says that they had accepted it as a compromise. That Clause is not a compromise but Conservative policy. There is not a Conservative who would get up in this House or anywhere in the country and propose that civil aviation should be in the hands of private enterprise with no control or assistance of any kind from the Ministry. The Conservative policy is for as much private interest as possible in civil aviation and as much assistance as possible from the Minister, as is the case in this Clause. That is Conservative policy; the policy on this side of the House is the nationalisation of civil aviation. This is not a compromise at all; it is Conservative policy.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend put an Amendment down in such a form and I am sorry that he said some of the things he did say. Let it be understood here that I am a member of the Labour Party and pay my dues regularly to the Labour Party, but I do not have any rights within the Labour Party except the rights which I take. But I have had a long experience of the Labour Party and labour policy and if the Labour Party is returned to power, as I believe it will be, it will not put it


in the forefront of its programme of world organisation. If a Labour Government is elected and carries out a Labour policy, it will give greater opportunities in the development and advance of civil aviation than ever could come from the Conservative side. Even as it develops civil aviation, it will discuss with other nations and make agreements, all developing towards an international understanding, but it is impossible to conceive of or to discuss international organisation apart from the development of national aviation. Twenty years ago nobody would have thought of discussing world aviation. It is because of the development which has taken place in national aviation that the question of international aviation comes up. To take the question of world aviation in this form is not helpful. A lot of people think Marx said, "Workers of the world, unite." Marx never said anything so foolish. There is no such thing as "workers of the world." There are workers of different lands who understand the need of unity and agreement. It is the same with regard to this question of aviation.
If this Amendment were accepted, we would throw out this Bill. We keep on talking and pleading for world organisation, but how would that happen if we had very poor civil aviation in the country, very bad planes, very poor organisation, very inexperienced pilots? If we were very backward in civil aviation how could we possibly forward the cause of international understanding or international organisation? It is true that, wherever there is progress and development in the building up of a national organisation there is always danger of conflicts arising between one country and another? The business of political leaders and statesmen is to try to bring about common understanding and desirable agreements, working all the time towards what everyone desires, namely, international organisation. So we must concern ourselves in this country with the building up of civil aviation, getting the finest planes and the finest pilots and crews possible, and, in order to ensure this, getting the best control and direction.
The only effective control and direction would be if this first Clause, instead of limiting the Minister to measures that assist outside companies and monopolies, paved the way for the Ministry at the earliest possible moment to take over

these monopolies for the nation. The Government are supposed to represent and speak for the people, not for a particular group in the country, not for the railway companies, not for the shipping companies, not for a few people here and there. The Government are supposed to speak for and represent the people as a whole, and there should be something in this first Clause that would prepare the way for the Government, speaking for and representing the people, to take over all the resources of civil aviation and develop them in such a way that they would be used to the fullest possible advantage for the masses of the people. If we could get that course developed in this country, if we saw it developing in other countries, then we would have taken a very big step towards what the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) desires, and what all of us desire, an international understanding and an international organisation running the main traffic routes throughout the world.
I want to try to make this clear, because I understand what the hon. Member for Nuneaton has been working for and advocating throughout the country, and I would like him to understand that he should always associate this question of international understanding with national development of this particular service. If he does that, he will help the development of civil aviation in this country and help very greatly towards developing an international organisation that will assist us very much to secure the future for peace, and progress for the people of this country and the people of the world.

8.5 p.m.

Major-General Sir Frederick Sykes: May I say how much I agreed with the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) when he said that our whole focus should be to try to meet the demands of the user? I think in all these matters that should be the primary concern. I am afraid, however, that I cannot follow him when he seeks to internationalise aviation at the present moment. I quite see that it is an ideal towards which we should all work, but I do not think it is practicable at present. We have to do the best we can in the immediate present, but with that primary consideration for the user which he has so well brought out.
As I said when I spoke on this subject recently on the White Paper, whilst con-


gratulating the Government on setting up the Ministry for Civil Aviation, I think that is really as far as I can go with reference to either the White Paper or this Bill. If this Bill is purely in order to set up a Ministry, I am entirely with it, but if it is a question of policy I am afraid that we really ought to have another opportunity of discussing policy and that another White Paper and another Bill should be brought in. If that is definitely the case, I have really little more to say. If, as I understood, it was desirable to speak on the general question of policy on this Amendment, then I should have liked to say a good deal—if there was to be no chance to speak upon that subject at a later date.
However, if I can have the assurance from the Minister of Aircraft Production or the Parliamentary Secretary that that is not the case, that I am wrong, and I hope I am wrong—because this Bill really is quite inadequate and is unsatisfactory from almost every point of view except that it sets up a Ministry—I shall hope to speak later when another White Paper comes up on the policy of this Ministry, and then we can see whether it ought again to be postponed. Possibly it might be better to postpone the actual policy until after the Election. It may be that nationalisation will follow, as the hon. Member said; it might even be international organisation or free enterprise, but we should have a straight course to work upon. At present I think it is really an unsatisfactory position and, if I can have that assurance, I will not detain the House longer.

Mr. Montague: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer that point?

Sir S. Cripps: As I understand the position, the Government do not consider that the Debate upon the White Paper had any binding force upon the House at all. It was one of the discussions which have often been initiated in recent times, a general discussion to allow people to express their opinion. Part of the White Paper, however, will require implementation by legislation. Whether it is more convenient to have the Debate on the introduction of that legislation on the general principle or whether the House would like some other occasion—in which case I am sure my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be very glad to

consider through the usual channels any such request for a Debate on general matters of civil aviation—

Mr. Montague: The right hon. and learned Gentleman forgets the fact that we have not had a discussion on the White Paper at all and, unless we have such a discussion, it cannot be determined that the policy of that Paper is the wish of the British House of Commons.

Sir S. Cripps: I said, perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear me, that the Government did not assume that the White Paper had the assent of the House. There was a discussion on the White Papers—I took part in it myself—but it was not in a form to bind the House to conclusions one way or the other.

Mr. Montague: The right hon. and gallant Member for Central Nottingham (Sir F. Sykes) put the point whether we should be able to discuss the whole policy embodied in the White Paper. If the Minister says that can be discussed upon some legislation dealing with part of the proposals in the White Paper, then can we have that assurance?

Sir S. Cripps: Certainly. In order to implement the policy of the White Paper, legislation will be required and on that, naturally, there will be a Second Reading discussion. [An HON. MEMBER: "On the whole policy?"] On the whole policy of the wide question. If, on the other hand, the legislation is delayed for some reason or another, and if the House desires to have a further Debate, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will, through the usual channels, do his best to meet the wishes of the House.

Mr. Bowles: On the Thursday before the day of rising for the Easter Recess, I asked the Leader of the House whether he thought that the discussion on the White Paper and the Civil Estimates was authority for the Government to go ahead with the White Paper policy, but I understand that he may say "No" to-morrow.

Sir S. Cripps: I am not quite sure about that, but my right hon. Friend may well have meant that he gathered from the general tenor of the discussion that the House was in favour of it. Clearly, there was no binding decision on the House.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. Edgar Granville: The Minister of Aircraft Production has had a good deal of experience as Leader of the House and I take it that he has given a general assurance, in so far as he is able to give one in his present position, that if this Bill secures its Second Reading we shall be given an opportunity for a general Debate on the Government's civil aviation policy. If that is so, then it will perhaps enable Members who desire to take part in this Debate to limit their remarks. I must say that I think the House has been unfortunate in the matter of Debates on civil aviation. A number of Members who, over a considerable period, have made civil aviation their subject have repeatedly pressed their proposals on the Government. Then there was pressure for a Debate before the Empire Conference, but we were put off because we were told that there must first be consultation between the Dominion Prime Ministers. Afterwards the Noble Lord who is Minister for Civil Aviation was appointed and the House of Lords was given an opportunity for a full Debate on this matter, while the House of Commons was still denied such an opportunity. Here we are again, to-night, setting up a new Ministry and we are still almost as far away as ever from getting a clear statement of the Government's national and international civil aviation policy. We had Lord Beaverbrook, as Lord Privy Seal, conducting the negotiations with Dr. Adolf Berle, United States representative on this matter, and then we had the phase when the Minister of Aircraft Production took over responsibility—

Sir S. Cripps: I did not take over responsibility.

Mr. Granville: Well, the right hon. and learned Gentleman took over responsibility for being the Government's spokesman in this House on civil aviation.

Sir S. Cripps: I have taken over no responsibility, but I am speaking on behalf of the Government.

Mr. Granville: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is Government spokesman for civil aviation. He was so when we debated Prestwick airport recently and again, to-night, he is so, and is accepting responsibility for Cabinet policy

with regard to this Bill. Personally, I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is to give up some of these functions, because I think he has made a great success of his present job, and the aircraft industry and the people of this country generally think so too. I, for one, with many others, would be perfectly happy if he would continue from that point of view, including his present association with the inventive, scientific and research sides of aviation.
I am quite sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles), who is making something of a reputation for himself in this House on questions of air policy, will realise that his Amendment involves objective or long-term policy. Most of us are, I think, in agreement with him on many of these ideals. I do not know who will reply for the Government upon this Amendment, but I am quite sure that the Government spokesman's answer will be a repetition of the previous argument of the Minister of Aircraft Production on a similar occasion that in this Coalition Government he can proceed only so far in policy as he is able to get general agreement. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot get out of this Government agreement on a national or international policy, then he must go as far as he can. That has been his defensive argument. There is one thing on which he can get agreement, and on which I have been extremely disappointed with what has so far taken place. He can get agreement within the British Common-wealth. I had hoped that after the Debates we have had, after the consultations with Dominion Prime Ministers, who are democratically elected and are not the old Imperialists, we should have found, in this Bill, the Minister being given functions of something like a president of a Board of Commonwealth Aviation. I had hoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have been able to tell us to-night that some discussion had taken place during the present visit of the Dominion representatives, because there is no future for British aviation unless it is within a democratic unit of the Commonwealth nations. You have not the slightest chance—and you must know it by now—in any world competition with America on world air routes unless you go to New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and


Canada and say: "Let us have a democratic policy of co-operation and agreement on this matter."
The right hon. and learned Gentleman must know that this Bill and Government policy so far are simply playing with the problem. I was one of those who saw the struggle of British civil aviation before the war, when air-minded people tried to get it on to its feet and found themselves up against a Government Front Bench which was completely non-airminded. After all the experience of the past, all the trials, the blunders, the mistakes, and all the money we have spent on behalf of the taxpayers on the British Overseas Airways Corporation, all they can produce M 1945 after a mountain of words and labour is this flying mouse. People in this country, and particularly young men in the Services who have read our Debates in the House, and the contributions which air-minded Members have made to those discussions—and I am sorry if this argument appears to bore the right hon. and learned Gentleman—are thinking that the only chance there will be of developing aviation in the world as it should be developed will be with the United States of America, although the lead of New Zealand and Australia has given them a gleam of hope.
We in this House are living in a world of absolute unreality in this matter. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that any Minister who stands up at that Box five years from now and says that our aircraft industry must not be decentralised throughout the British Commonwealth will be out of office in five minutes. Singapore taught us that we cannot run aviation from one centre, or run production entirely from this country, which could he "Pearl Harbour-ed." We have to decentralise it throughout the British Commonwealth perhaps with international strategic considerations very much in mind. I say we must be looking ahead on this.
I had hoped we would see a policy of some imagination and vision. I think it would follow that we should pool and centralise our scientific research, with which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has some connection. I think that if somebody in Australia has a good idea for making instruments more efficient or more accurate in saving lives, that idea ought to be available to the producers of aircraft here, and vice versa. I had hoped

that as a result of this Bill the Minister would be able to tell us that he would set up in this country a Commonwealth academy of aeronautical science and that apprentices from the Dominions would have the right to fly over here and get at first hand the finest information on aeronautical technology. Instead of all that we have this Bill, which takes us back to 1938 or even before that, the implications of which will put this country in the position of a second rate civil air Power. There is not the slightest chance of British civil aviation getting an opportunity as a unit in a Commonwealth set-up or an international set-up unless we can get a Government which is prepared to take risks and will bring forward a policy that will capture the support of the younger and air-minded people in the world.
I do not know what the Minister meant when he referred to the responsibilities for design, production and research, which, I gather, will be left with his own Ministry. Does this mean that the same guidance is to be given from the Ministry of Aircraft Production as was given by the Air Ministry before the war to the designers and producers of civil aircraft in this country? Does it mean the absolute monopoly of the Society of British Aircraft Constructors all over again and the refusal to give new men, inventors, designers and men with progressive schemes, an opportunity to put their ideas into new aircraft? Does it mean that the Ministry of Aircraft Production is going to repeat that pre-war policy which, after we had spent the vast sums of money which we did spend on a programme for aircraft rearmament in this country, left us with less than 50 aircraft in the reserve in the Battle of Britain? That is what happened with the monopoly before the war when small men were kept out or given no opportunities by monopolies. Does it mean that under this Bill all that will happen again and that there is to be a system of priority control, operating against the enterprise of small firms?
This is a disappointing and indeed a somewhat hopeless Bill. After all the Debates that have taken place in the House, and which have reflected what is wanted by the new minds in the Services and in the Dominions all we have been given is this Bill. I hope that the Government will take the advice they have been given and withdraw the Measure, and that there will be in the House a Debate


on policy, national and Commonwealth and international, and that then the Government will give us some really bold and constructive proposals in the future.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. Montague: It would be out of place to make an exhaustive speech on general policy at this time of night and on this Bill. At the same time, the Amendment we have been discussing and which we are still discussing, I believe, is one that was perfectly justified in the circumstances, because it is possible to deal with the Government's broad policy on civil aviation on a Bill setting up a Ministry the purpose of which is to implement whatever policy the Government may have in the future. I do not want to say very much on this occasion, but one expression used by the Minister of Aircraft Production has caused me very much concern. He spoke of supremacy. I do not know whether that was a slip of the tongue or not. If he really meant that we as a nation are out for supremacy in civil aircraft, then I fear very much for the future of world peace and world amity. I do not think the point could have been better put than it was by the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville).

Sir S. Gripps: I was talking about technical supremacy and not supremacy in the sense to which the hon. Gentleman is referring.

Mr. Montague: I will accept that interpretation, but even if the right hon. and learned Gentleman was talking about technical supremacy, I think it was a most unwise word to use. We want technical efficiency, we want to get the best technique we can, but that has no reference to the question of national supremacy one way or the other. If there is to be a competition in technique, I do not think it will be possible to expect that we shall be able to become supreme vis-à-vis America, because of America's vast resources and her technical efficiency. I think we ought to get right away from the idea of competitive supremacy one way or the other. The hon. Member for Eye put the matter very properly when he said that if, in the matter of technical efficiency or competitive supremacy, we are to put ourselves up against America, then let us do it as an Empire and not as

a single country. If we are going to do it as an Empire, it seems to me to be very unwise for us as a Government and a nation to turn down two-thirds of the British Empire in the matter of civil aviation policy. I want to remind the Minister of Aircraft Production that two out of the three Dominions of Australia, New Zealand and Canada have agreed upon a policy of internationalisation, and failing an international policy, an Imperial public ownership policy in respect not only of manufacture but of operation. That is the only way in which we can face America, whether we call it supremacy or technical efficiency. That is one of the reasons why the Labour Party have adopted the policy they have done, a policy that has been described more than once to the House.
With regard to internationalisation, it is appropriate, I think, to point to the fact—and it is a fact—that we cannot control the air policy of the United States. As long as the United States and Canada, under the same influence, are opposed to internationalisation, we cannot expect improvement, even if we have all the will in the world; but after all, it is a long-term question and in the future there ought to be an opportunity of altering even the policy of the United States if we have influence enough to do it, especially in the light of some amount of experience in present conditions. We are perfectly justified in keeping to the fore the policy of internationalisation. After all, Great Britain stands for something. The Minister of Aircraft Production talked about supremacy, whatever interpretation he may give to that word. I do not know how long it is since the British bulldog lost its bark. Surely, there is something in the influence of Britain, in the matter of civil aviation, throughout the world sufficient to justify us in keeping alive this spark of internationalism in spite of what has been done at Chicago and elsewhere to damp it down. That is all I have to say. On behalf of the Labour Party I accept the Bill for its purpose—that is to say, a machinery Bill setting up a new Ministry. It does not really go beyond that, and it agrees with the policy of the Labour Party, expressed not only in speeches in the House but also in propagandist literature, of taking the control of civil administration away from the Air Ministry and vesting it in a special Ministry of its own,


a conception on the part of the House and the country of the great importance of civil aviation in the light of what has happened throughout the war in the development of civil aircraft.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Lawson: Some earlier speakers hinted that they thought it inappropriate to demand a discussion of this nature on a limited machinery Bill, but I think the House is indebted to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) for having put down an Amendment which sums up very well what are the main problems in the question of the future of world civil aviation: One hon. Member has also questioned the logic of the mover and seconder, suggesting that they were against the whole idea of a Ministry to deal with civil aviation. I do not read the Amendment in that way at all. It seems to me that, if it were passed, it would dispose of this particular Bill, but surely the logic of the speeches in support of the Amendment is that another Bill should be brought forward setting up a Ministry of Civil Aviation with a mandate to carry out what is expressed in the latter part of the Amendment. So I do not think there is any lack of logic there. It seems to me that the important thing stressed in the Amendment is the ownership and control of civil aviation. I do not think anyone will dispute that aviation must be controlled. I am not dealing now with whether it should be national or world control, but it must be controlled for three reasons. First of all, air power is potential war power and if a community, whether large or small, does not control the development of civil aviation, and therefore potential air warfare, we shall see this thing destroy us instead of serving us. Secondly, civil aviation must be subject to public control because in this century transport always tends towards monopoly, and it is in the very nature of things that aviation will become a monopoly and so it cannot be left to private interests. Thirdly, I think we have a situation in the world in respect to air transport similar to the railway boom that we had in the last century. Unless the public take steps to control it there will be very rapid and chaotic extension, with very large profits for some and great distress to others, and indeed to the public. So I do not think anyone will suggest that there should be absolutely no control at all.
How can one achieve this public control? Can there be, for instance, effective public control while aviation is still privately owned? I am glad that that words "ownership" and "control" appear in the Amendment because I do not think it is possible to have public control, whether of operations or of manufacture or any other process, without at the same time having public ownership. The result of a dual system—of the splitting of ownership and control—must be for those who own the undertaking to propose certain action and for the controlling body to say, yes or no, whether it can take place. In other words, the whole outlook of the public body controlling is negative and one of restriction. In other words, it is bound to lead to bureaucracy. I believe that, if we are to have this effective control, which I believe the whole nation desires, it must be public ownership and any attempt to try to work some sort of public control over private ownership will turn out to be private ownership of the public control.
The next point is that mentioned by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). Who is to do the controlling and owning—the nation or a world authority?

Mr. Gallacher: My point was that another Bill should be brought in appointing a Minister of Aviation, with his first job to go about trying to get a world organisation.

Mr. Lawson: The hon. Member more or less agrees with my paraphrase. First of all, I believe that public control and public ownership have to start at home, which will incidentally develop the civil aviation of the country both with regard to its internal lines and also the lines operating overseas. Secondly, if we have any influence within the British Commonwealth of Nations, I think we should use it to secure public ownership and control on a Commonwealth basis if it can be achieved, and also on a basis of a European federation if that can be achieved. Surely however the long-term objective to which we must reach out is world control and world ownership because, with the present development of aviation, the world is the unit and you cannot have any less unit. So I am glad to see it stated in plain words that it has to be on a world basis. It has been sug-


gested that this is very nice but impracticable and Utopian. I agree that it may be difficult to achieve control and ownership on a world basis but, unless we do achieve it, within a very short time after the war there is a certainty of rivalry between the large Powers in the field of aviation leading to further war, which will lead probably to destruction such as we have never seen before. I, therefore, welcome the Amendment. I think it sums up the important aspects of the problem and, unless the House and the country are determined to put into practice as large a measure of the idea expressed by the Amendment as possible, there is very little future for a reasonable settlement of this vast problem either from the point of view of this country, of the Commonwealth of Nations or of the world.

8.39 P.m.

Mr. Muff: I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) for proposing the Amendment and bringing us up against the larger issues of this inadequate and disappointing Bill. It might very properly be called a skeleton Measure, and I agree that my hon. Friend has tried to put some flesh on to this mass of bones. I wish I could call on the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) to follow me and repeat the speech that he made, what seems now a very long time ago. It was a very fine speech before the war, in which he foreshadowed what might be done by municipal authorities. I am sorry to bring the parish pump to the House, but a year ago the constituency which I have the honour to represent introduced a Bill for civil aviation, and we were over-persuaded to withdraw it at the behest of the Secretary of State for Air. The Secretary of State, through his permament officials, told us in Yorkshire a year ago that they were going to produce a magnificent scheme. So far we have got nothing but this Bill. I am certain that we are not going to build civil aviation on the nebulous promises we have so far received. I prefer the more robust oratory of the hon. Member for Stroud in his earlier days. Perhaps now that he is going to be reincarnated, he, too, will come along with the usual nebulous promises which mean very little.
Before the war the Government encouraged municipal authorities to create

what, I agree, were somewhat circumscribed services of civil aviation, and the localities spent much money on them. Leeds and Bradford spent a lot of money and Hull rated their over-taxed ratepayers to the tune of 3d. in the £ to create an aerodrome. To their credit, Hull were not influenced by the spirit of the parish pump, for they introduced that European service which my hon. Friend the Member for Eye (Mr. E. Granville) mentioned. We brought K.L.M. to this country, and we tried to do something to create equality—I use that word because my hon. Friend on the Opposition Front Bench does not like the word "supremacy." I rather like that word. We had supremacy in the air on one or two occasions in the war, and I thank God that we had. I want to say to my hon. Friend, who was Under-Secretary for Air in the 1929–31 Government, that my city of Hull are rather proud that we have a chair to secure technological equality, if not supremacy, in aviation. I do not want to look over the wide horizon, which may become a lost horizon, or travel over the illimitable veldt, but I want to get down to realities.

Mr. Montague: Suppose every hon. Member spoke in the same way about his own city, what kind of supremacy does my hon. Friend think we should get?

Mr. Muff: We would get supremacy if we only followed the example of the city I represent.

Mr. Gallacher: If the hon. Gentleman is not going to travel the illimitable veldt, how is it that he starts off with a world organisation, and gets down to the city of Hull?

Mr. Muff: I am sorry to bring in this distinguished city again, but it was one of the pioneers which brought European aviation to this country. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), living in a circumscribed area, has perhaps never heard of it before, and I want to remind him of it. We cannot be satisfied with this Bill. I want to remind the hon. Member for Stroud before he takes up his news office, that a distinct pledge was made on behalf of those who were acting for civil aviation when it was under the Air Ministry to those municipal authorities which have spent hundreds of thousands of pounds to develop civil aviation and to make proper landing grounds. I


would remind the House that there are other places in the country besides Prestwick. We ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production to tell us that he is not going to sell the pass. We have been "sold a pup" in the past, and I want him to acquaint the hon. Member for Stroud that we expect something much better than false hopes.

8.47 P.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production (Mr. Lennox-Boyd): I have no wish to be discourteous to any hon. Member who has taken part in this Debate, but I feel that it would be consistent with the general feeling of the House if I confined my remarks to a very short period. This is, as we have said almost ad nauseam, a machinery Bill, and we welcome the assurance of my hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) that in that capacity he accepts it. Among Other purposes, it has the object of giving concrete shape to the present nebulous form of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins), whose arrival on the Front Bench will, I feel sure, be welcomed by his colleagues and the House as a whole. The separation of civil aviation from the Air Ministry and its constitution under a separate Minister has been discussed previously in this House, and as recently as 26th January every speaker save one who took part in the Debate was strongly in favour of it. No vote was taken, so overwhelming was the feeling. This inauguration of.the Ministry of Civil Aviation will be necessary, whatever the domestic set up or Imperial set up or international set up may be in the future. There is no limit on the powers of the Minister at all, and, however ambitious his activities may be, there is full opportunity for him to achieve them within the scope of this Bill.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that the first Clause permits the Minister to contribute service to civil aviation, but that all that service goes to those organisations whch control civil aviation? Will it be possible to put down an Amendment to that Clause permitting the Minister to take over and nationalise Civil Aviation?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have little doubt that the hon. Member will discover the rules of Order himself, and we shall no doubt be faced with an Amendment when the Committee stage comes on. We can-

not in this House legislate for Empire or foreign countries, but it is certainly true that we cannot go ahead with vigour with our discussions with Empire or foreign countries without setting up a proper and vigorous Ministry of Civil Aviation. That is all that this Bill does, and I ask the House to give it a unanimous Second Reading.

Mr. Bowles: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow —[Mr. Pym.]

MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION [MONEY]

Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69.

[Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS in the Chair]

Resolved:
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the appointment and functions of a Minister of Civil Aviation, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of an annual salary not exceeding five thousand pounds payable to the Minister appointed under the said Act, and of the expenses of that Minister, including the salaries or remuneration payable to any Parliamentary Secretary, and to any other secretaries, officers or servants, appointed by the Minister."— (King's Recommendation signified.)—[Sir S. Cripps.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

RUSSIA (GERMAN LABOUR)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pym.]

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: I put a Question to the Foreign Secretary earlier to-day on the subject of a report which I have received relating to the goings on, or proceedings, at the Teheran and Yalta Conferences, in regard to a supply of free male labour to the U.S.S.R., after the termination of the war in Europe. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs replied, in effect, that this matter was not specifically discussed either at Teheran or Yalta, but he gave no real


assurance as to the intentions of His Majesty's Government.
The reason I have raised the issue is simply that I have received what appear to be authoritative rumours, that it is the intention of our Russian friends to insist on the supply of 2,000,000 male slave labourers for 20 years after the cessation of hostilities. Whether this report is true or not I do not know, and I do not think that materially affects the reason for my raising the issue. If it is untrue, the sooner the rumour is exploded the better. If it is true, the sooner we make our position clear the better for everybody concerned. I think that, as a matter of principle, it is entirely wrong to condone a policy which your friends may feel inclined to adopt, but which you would condemn in your own case or that of your enemies. I am bound to say that I was somewhat perplexed, and was more encouraged to raise this issue to-night, because of the supplementary question which the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) put to the Foreign Secretary. I am sorry that the hon. Member is not here. I gave him full warning that I was going to mention the fact that he put the supplementary to the Foreign Secretary. He asked, if the Russians should, at some future date, require the services of German labour for the purposes of reconstruction, whether there would be anything wrong with that. What precisely my hon. Friend meant I find it difficult to discover, and in his absence I am afraid I shall not get any further enlightenment to-night, but in the context in which the remark was made, it would seem to me to imply that the hon. Member would not object to slave labour.
I feel very strongly on the point, more particularly as it would seem to be completely against all the principles for which I and hon. Members on this side of the House stand, in this respect. I quite appreciate that the Russians have suffered tremendous damage to their country, and that they are entitled to fair recompense and to demand restitution in kind. But I believe that at least 99·9 per cent. of hon. Members on this side of the House would regard the idea of slave labour for generations as absolutely abhorrent. To think that children now four or five years old are to be carted off fifteen years hence and used in another country, because of

matters over which they had no control at all, is abominable. If the rumour is untrue, nobody could be more delighted than I shall be. I shall seek to obtain from the Minister an assurance that whatever may have been discussed at the Teheran and Yalta Conferences, the policy of His Majesty'S Government is at least to resist a suggestion of any kind from any Government that there should be an arrangement which involves slave labour for the victors at the expense of the vanquished. It may be necessary by arrangement, and under proper conditions, to secure the assistance of technical advice, and technical labour if you like, but if that is done it must be done under proper conditions, voluntarily and with full pay. I do not myself feel able to speak with such fervour as others who have knowledge of the matter, about what is involved from the trade union point of view, but we want no slave labour of any kind whatever from anybody, and the sooner that is made perfectly clear to everybody the better it will be for all of us.
So far as I have studied and observed our political propaganda to the Germans, practically everything we have said has encouraged them to go on fighting. One thing that would make me go on fighting if I were in a similar position to the Germans would be the idea that slave labour would be imposed upon my country, and not only that I should have to go—that would be bad enough indeed—but that my children and other people who had had no responsibility for the horrors that Governments, and not the peoples themselves, had visited on the world, were to be carted off and worked in other territories as slaves, for 15 or 20 years. Facetiously, one may say that if the Germans must go to rebuild Russia, therefore, logically, as we have knocked most of Germany down, we should go to rebuild Germany, the Americans should go and rebuild Japan and the Japanese should go and rebuild China; but that scheme would not work.
If we contemplate anything like that we shall sow the seeds of another and more devastating war. I have said again and again that we have got to approach this whole programme of peace in a constructive manner. I have protested again and again about this cry of unconditional surrender. If I may use an un-Parliamentary phrase, it is a childish and silly-ass cry, and nobody, not even


a third form boy, would dream, in the light of history, of using such a phrase. It is bound to make the Germans go on if you consider the circumstances and the sights that have been seen as a result of our deliberate policy of indiscriminate bombing, the smashing up of cities, the devastation, yes, and even the Morgenthau plan. Indeed, it may be all part of it, it may very well be the implication or the implementation of the Morgenthau plan to bring benefit to certain interests across the seas; but by lowering the standards of life in Central Europe you are bound to lower the standards of life of everybody else. We had better find out what is happening. All I can say is that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give me an assurance that there is nothing in this idea, that the Government are not even contemplating listening to a suggestion of this kind. It is all very well for him to shake his head, but whilst I am not prepared to name those responsible people both in this country and in America who have stated this, it has been stated. It is no use pretending it is not quite common talk in the Middle East that one of the conditions is the use of 2,000,000 German slaves for 20 years.

Mr. Loftus: Does the hon. Member mean 2,000,000 slaves from the American or British occupied part of Germany or from the whole of Germany?

Mr. Stokes: From the whole of Germany. It does not really matter, and I do not understand the point of my hon. Friend's interruption. He may have put it in quite a friendly manner, but I do not see that it makes any difference.

Mr. Loftus: The point of my interruption was that we have control of the part of Germany that we occupy but no control over the part we do not occupy.

Mr. Stokes: With great respect I would say that tit is not the point. We have these great conferences going on. I personally object to the secrecy which surrounds them. I think it is terrible. I can understand that when the Allied Nations are at war the leaders must meet together and discuss military plans whereby they hope to overthrow their enemies and it is important, obviously, that those plans should be kept secret. But why the political decisions and the political consequences of victory should be kept secret beats me. I have always said I believe that the conditions the Allied Governments

propose to impose are so disgraceful that they dare not tell our people about them. It is one of the things that haunts me. It is an abomination. And when I hear the hon. Member for Seaham apparently condone the idea of the slave labour I wonder whether my sanity will last very much longer, particularly when one hears the Labour Party or any Member of the party apparently support it.

Mr. Tinker: Do not say the Labour Party.

Mr. Stokes: Well, any Member of the Labour Party, and I was referring to the hon. Member for Seaham. It is important that our position should be made clear and the sooner it is done the better for all of us. While I have not the authority to speak for the Labour Party I believe I know well enough what the working men of this country believe and they believe in freedom all the time. They do not believe in slavery of any kind whatever. It is recognised that it is not the peoples who are responsible for the war but their misguided and very often corrupt rulers. What the working man and his brother overseas expect when they come home and what they have been fighting for is that fair and proper treatment shall be meted out to all peoples, enemy nations as well. I seek an assurance that there shall be no approval of slavery anywhere, at any time, under any conditions.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: I rise to support my hon. Friend in the first part of his speech with regard to slave labour, but I want to make my position quite clear on the second part, because I have always supported the unconditional surrender of the German people. I have advocated it times without number, and I should not like it to be thought that I was associated with him in his point of view on that. I do want the matter to be cleared up to-night. During the third day of the Debate on the Crimea Conference the right hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) made remarks to which I took exception. He said he was general secretary of the Reparations Committee in 1920 and he believed then that it would have been better if the major part of the reparations had been taken in the form of the physical rebuilding of the devastated regions of France and Belgium by German labour and German materials. When I tried to


protest he was not prepared to give way and I had to wait until later. When the Foreign Secretary replied to the Debate he said:
The right hon. Gentleman also said yesterday that we should not ask for millions of pounds in reparations but for reparations in kind. I agree, and that is exactly what we are doing. No doubt mankind learns slowly, but we hope that it does learn, and from the lesson of the last war we have learnt that reparations in kind are what we should seek. We should like, for instance, a little timber for the reconstruction of our houses. Russia will certainly provide some, but I do not see why Germany should not too.
I interrupted then and asked:
Does that mean the transference of German population? The first speaker to-day made the point that reparations in kind meant transferring the German population to other parts.
The Foreign Secretary replied:
Reparations in kind mean the delivery of materials like timber."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1945; Vol. 408, c. 1665.]
He left it at that and I was satisfied with that reply. I took it that reparations meant that Germany would be called upon to make reparations in kind, materials and all that kind of thing. Judge of my surprise when I find that there seems to be some doubt whether he did not mean the transference of labour, and I promised my hon. Friend if he did raise the matter on the Adjournment to support him on this point. I ask the House to be very careful on this matter. Wars are caused by this kind of thing. If we leave in the minds of the people who are beaten the feeling that they have not been dealt with properly it will only be sowing the seeds for future wars.
I always try to turn the picture round for myself. For instance, if Germany had beaten us and had come along to transfer some of our population for the purpose of rebuilding and repairing the damage they had suffered, the only thing it would have done for me would have been to leave in my mind the seeds of revenge. There must be many like myself who will feel that if the German people know there will be large transfers of their men for slave labour then we cannot hope for anything but the fears of future wars, because in that action we shall have been sowing the seeds of hatred and revenge in the hearts and minds of the defeated peoples. That is why I join with my hon. Friend to-night. We have a lot of differ-

ences on many points, and we shall have more, but on the broad issue of trying to get other countries to recognise what ought to be done after this war I agree with him.
I hope the Under-Secretary of State will make it clear that all the power we have at these conferences will be used for the purpose of trying to show the other nations that we do not agree with this kind of thing. It may be that we shall not be able to succeed. Russia may demand it, and may succeed, but we can tell them that we do not agree with that policy, and I hope others will be influenced by our point of view. If by any chance remarks are made to-night to the effect that we agree that Germany has caused all this trouble and suffering and should pay the penalty, if we lend credence to that, some people will think that Britain believes in that kind of policy and will help us in getting slave labour for Europe. I hope that Britain will give a lead to the world in this matter. Much depends on what Great Britain thinks in leading the Continent to a proper conclusion. I join with my hon. Friend in the hope that the British Parliament will decide that slave labour shall not come within the terms of settlement.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: As this discussion turns on the question of slaves it is desirable that the House should get a clear idea in its mind of what the word "slave" means. I speak subject to correction. Hon. Members opposite will kindly interrupt if I say anything with which they do not happen to agree. I take it that a slave is one who works under certain conditions, that he has only one possible employer, that all his livelihood is provided for, he is fed, he is lodged, and his family are al provided for. He is encouraged to breed by his family being looked after for him. He has to work where he is told to work, do what job he is told to do, work when he is told to do so. He has no choice as to where he shall work, or what job he shall work at, or how hard he shall work, or for whom he shall work.

Colonel Viscount Suirdale: Is the hon. Member referring to the Army?

Mr. Hopkinson: The hon. and gallant Member will soon see to what I am


referring. Having now defined what a slave is, that he is one who is directed as to what work he shall do, where he shall work and for whom he shall work, and that his family is provided for, I ask, Who are we, particularly the hon. Members opposite, to object to slavery, when our whole policy is proposing the introduction of slavery in this country in every respect I have mentioned? What is the location of industry for? A device to prevent a man from working where he likes. He is to work where his master, the State, says he has to work. What is the direction of industry and the guaranteeing of employment, such as is provided for by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir W. Beveridge)? It is direction as to what a man shall work at, what work he shall do. He is going to guarantee full employment, and I suppose hon. Members agree that full employment cannot be guaranteed without the power to direct what work a man shall do. His family is to be provided for, he is to be encouraged to breed more slaves for the community, by means of a device called family allowances. He is to be provided, like any other slave, with shelter, He may want to spend the money he has earned upon dog racing, but it will he taken away from him in rates and taxes. A house is to he provided. He is not to be allowed to say how he will spend his own money—another feature of slavery. I think if we examine the policy of the party opposite, as so carefully laid down by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, we must agree that everything which makes a man a slave is the basis of the policy of the party opposite.

It being a Quarter past Nine o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pym.]

9.15 p.m.

Mr. S. O. Davies: I shall not pretend to be as learned in the art of enslavement as the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson), but I do not remember any protest in this House on the part of the hon. Gentleman when a form of slavery was practised in our own country comparable with that against which my hon. Friends are protesting this evening. The hon. Gentleman and his party were responsible—the party with

which I understand he identifies himself on occasion—

Mr. Hopkinson: I cannot let that pass, considering that all three parties are to run candidates against me at the next Election.

Mr. Davies: I should be most unsportsmanlike if I were to tell the House that the hon. Gentleman is likely to get what he has been asking for this long time. I will not express that view, but dealing with this question of slavery, I am certain that neither the hon. Gentleman nor any of the Members opposite protested against the sheer enslavement of 500,000 of my people in Wales in the inter-war period. Half a million men, women and children, one-fifth of the population, were by force uprooted from their country, driven throughout England, badgered, importuned, and many of them forced to live under conditions no better than will be those of the German worker if he is forced to work in Russia. We had no protest then, when thousands of homes were disrupted and even destroyed, when hundreds of our own young people were driven, by the policy of the hon. Gentleman and the Government of the day, to leave their homes in South Wales and return in a few years to die, literally by their hundreds, of tuberculosis. It happened in my constituency and in the constituency of my right hon. Friend who will reply to this Debate.
When we talk about enslavement I suggest to my hon. Friends most kindly that we try to maintain some sense of proportion in the matter. What happened in my country of Wales in the inter-war period is something we shall never forget, and I do not think we shall forgive for a very long time to come. But I appeal to my hon. Friends to maintain some little sense of proportion. The protestations they have made in the House this evening are protestations on behalf of slaves. The whole working class of Germany has been enslaved for the last 10 or 12 years. It is no good attempting to build a case by protesting against some rumour or other, by which Russia is supposed to be the guilty nation, on behalf of a nation of people who have not been free for half a generation.

Mr. Stokes: I think my hon. Friend is confusing the issue. Let us agree, for the purpose of his argument, that everybody


is a slave everywhere. Does he not see any difference between people working in their own country, under whatever conditions there may be, and people being carried off to another country, against their will?

Mr. Davies: Not in the least. Slavery is slavery, wherever it is experienced, and I see no greater evil in the masses of German people being enslaved in Russia than in their being enslaved in Germany. There was running through the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) the assumption that here was the possibility of free people being converted into slaves, and taken into another country. Most of the people on whose behalf he has made his appeal have known very little about freedom for the last 12 years. But I cannot, as a Welshman, condone the uprooting of vast masses of population merely to serve the selfish needs of people whose only interest is to sustain and perpetuate a rotten, corrupt, decaying economic system.

Captain Thorneycroft: To which country was the hon. Member referring—the country from which the slaves were being deported, or the country to which they were being taken?

Mr. Davies: I was referring to the economic system in these islands that compelled the uprooting of 500,000 of my people of Wales, who were simply driven, like sheep, up and down the land of this country. I got up to make those two points. Slavery is slavery wherever it is practised. I see no difference whether the man is being enslaved in his own country, or in any other part of the world. Freedom to work and freedom to express one's own personality, and obtain one's legitimate desires, is the freedom that I stand for. I hope that we shall maintain some sense of proportion on this subject, and that the House will forgive me for having taken memories back to a wretched page in our history, which I hope will never be repeated.

9.25 p.m.

Wing-Commander Grant-Ferris: I had not intended to intervene in this discussion, but the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) again said something with which I disagree, and I never seem to get the chance to

say how much I disagree with him. He said that unconditional surrender was complete nonsense. At the risk of repeating what to the majority of the country, I am sure, is a glimpse of the obvious, I say that it was the only possible course. If we had not insisted on unconditional surrender we should have betrayed all those who fought and died in the last war, and in this war. Of course, if we had not insisted on unconditional surrender, this war, in all probability, would have been over last August, or even earlier; and we should have sown the seeds for another war later on. We have to beat the Germans to a standstill, and the only way is the way we are doing it. We shall not be long now.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: This subject of German Labour seems to have aroused a great deal of passion. As one who has never deliberately aroused passions, may I say a word or two? I have always objected to the use of force to compel the French or Poles to work in Germany. We have to deal with this discussion entirely apart from the question whether the Poles or the Germans are to be compelled to work in Russia. I think it is wrong for any Government anywhere to swoop down on the working classes of another country and punish them for the evils of their leaders. I would not mind one bit if the Russians on the other hand called upon Hitler, Himmler, Ribbentrop, and their associates to work in Russia; but they will not of course call upon those. As a workman, and as a trade unionist, I object strongly to the assumption that any Government should enslave the working classes of any other country as a punishment. Take our own country, for instance. What has the ordinary miner, textile operative, or engineer to do with deciding whether our country shall go to war or not? Only the other day the Prime Minister told me that even the House of Commons had nothing to do with declaring war. I would like, however, the House of Commons to bring its influence to bear on these important issues. I go further than some of my hon. Friends. I do not like even an Englishman from Lanacashire to be directed to work in Birmingham. I have protested here several times against the prosecution of 36,000 British workpeople, some of


whom have been sent to gaol, because they would not proceed to work where they were told to go by this Government. If Members agree with that argument, they should agree also that it is wrong for a German workman to be forced to work in Czechoslovakia or Russia. Suppose when all these passions are over that you have 2,000,000 Germans working in Russia under duress. What are the I.L.O. going to say about it? The constitution of the I.L.O., to which I am glad to say our Government are affiliated, lays down definitely that this sort of thing shall not occur, and the I.L.O. is right.

Mr. Colegate: Are the Russians affiliated to the I.L.O.?

Mr. Davies: I cannot tell the hon. Member. But if they are not they ought to be. [HON MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I cannot understand the vociferous cheers from the other side of the House. I trust that nothing said in a Debate like this will do anything to mar the good relations existing between ourselves and Russia. I cannot understand the British people in that respect. I may be an odd sort of person, though I am quite willing to be odd in the views that I hold on war. The British people hated the Russians for years upon years. [HON MEMBERS: "No."] Oh yes they did. The people of this country hated the Bolsheviks, and then we got up one fine morning to fin I that all the Russians were saints and Stalin has been an archangel ever since. How childish!
I remember one day standing on the deck of a ship in the port of Alexandria, when I saw a man whipping labourers carrying sacks of sugar on their backs. I turned to an Egyptian friend of mine and said "It is a strange state of affairs that that fellow should whip workmen because they are rot moving fast enough." "Ah," he said, "the man with the whip is one of their own countrymen. If an Italian or a person of any other nationality whipped them we would soon see what would happen." Strange as it may seem, even the Britisher does not mind being whipped politically by a man of his own nationality. I am glad that in the few remarks I have made, I have dispersed some of the seriousness connected with this problem and that I have made it a little more human than it was at the beginning. My final word is

this: When the passions of war are finished; when peace is declared and we are back again to normal conditions in Europe I doubt whether anybody then will even suggest that a single German shall be forced to work in Russia or that a Russian shall be compelled to work in Germany.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. Craik Henderson: This Debate has been interesting, but at the same time rather depressing. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) and the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) are people of warm hearts and are kindly disposed, but, if I may say so, I think if the attitude of mind which is displayed in their speeches were the attitude of any Government, it would lead to another war before very long. We have had several hon. Members talking about the German people having been enslaved. What evidence have we that the German people were enslaved by a small gang? The German people enslaved themselves. They had every opportunity They had a Republican Government but did not want it. They had a chance of forming democratic principles but did not want them. The German people are a militarist nation and they want to see Germany great and powerful. This is not a recent development. It has existed over a very long period.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh said he would like to picture himself in the same circumstances there could be nothing more ridiculous. He approaches the subject with an entirely different attitude. He sees the picture from the point of view of justice and kindliness to his neighbour, but that is not the point of view of the German. The atrocities, murders and cruelties which have been perpetrated have not been perpetrated by 10 or 20 Nazis. They have been perpetrated by hundreds and thousands of Germans, and without a protest from any section of the German people. They only recognise ruthlessness, and, if we are going to accept this principle of the hon. Member for Leigh that the way to prevent future wars is to be kind to Germany, then I honestly believe that that course would be absolutely fatal. Germany will not understand weakness, and we cannot afford again to risk civilisation for ideas of that kind.

9.36 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Hall): My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) lost no time in initiating this Debate this evening. The Question which he addressed to my right hon. Friend this afternoon was replied to and I am afraid that I have very little to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend then gave. But the Debate is not really based so much upon the reply which my right hon. Friend gave as upon a fallacy—a rumour which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich in a supplementary question, when he suggested that it is proposed, by some country or another, that 2,000,000 Germans should be used as slaves for a period of 20 years, and that, by recruiting children from Germany, the number should be kept up to 2,000,000 during that period. May I assure my hon. Friend at once that, so far as we know, no such suggestion has been made by any Allied country at any of the Conferences which have been held? Indeed, I think that my right hon. Friend was ready to deny the statement which was made by the hon. Member for Ipswich. So the Debate is very wide of the mark, and I am sure that my hon. Friend himself would not suggest for a moment that it was the intention of His Majesty's Government to agree to any transfer of any persons to work under the conditions which have been suggested. I am afraid that our Allies will have a very bad opinion of certain hon. Members of this House, when they know that there is any suggestion that such a condition should apply to any persons who, it is suggested, should be transferred under conditions of that kind.
I think it would be well that I should quote from the published Yalta communiqué dealing with this question, and state what the declaration was. It was stated:
We recognise as just that Germany be obliged to make compensation for the damage she has caused in kind to the greatest possible extent. A Commission for the compensation of damage will be established and will be instructed to consider the question of the extent and method for compensating the damage caused by Germany to the Allied countries—

Mr. Stephen: Does that mean that ships are going to come to the Clyde?

Mr. Hall: I will try to deal with that if my hon. Friend will allow me.

The Commission will work at Moscow.
There can be very little criticism of this declaration or of its intentions. I would like to emphasise that the decisions about the methods of reparations have yet to be taken. The Commission has not yet met, and the House will realise that, when it meets, it will be dealing with very complicated matters. It has to find the best practical means of securing that Germany makes compensation for her ill-deeds. We cannot say finally in what way she will meet her reparation obligations with the least possible damage to our own interests until we are in control of Germany and can see what resources are available there. The matter will have to be approached from a commonsense angle, bearing in mind the lessons of reparations in the period after the last war. It is impossible to promise that the use of German labour as a means of obtaining compensation from Germany for the damage she has caused should be ruled out. Many thousands of German prisoners of war will at this stage be in the hands of the Allies. They cannot be sent home overnight, and it would seem foolish not to take advantage of the useful labour they might offer.
Nothing is more reprehensible than for anyone to assume in advance that any of the Allies who make use of such German labour will do so in the manner which has been suggested in this Debate. Nothing of the kind is contemplated. No Allied nation thinks of treating human beings as Germany treated the forced labour in her own country during the war. I would repeat what I said at the commencement of my speech, that the allegation by my hon. Friend about Marshal Stalin and 2,000,000 slaves is completely untrue. There is no need to emphasise to the House the enormous degree of devastation which the Germans have wrought in so many European countries, the millions of lives which have been lost as a result of the action of Germany and the millions of Allied men and women whom Germany has used for her own purposes during the war. I know of no difference of opinion among the people of the country, as has been shown at many Labour Party and trade union conferences, and by the views of the people generally who are all strongly supporting the principle that Germany should be obliged to make compensation for the devastation she has caused, to the greatest possible extent and by whatever means appear most practic-


able. The methods by which this principle will be implemented have to be determined by the Reparations Commission and the decisions that will be arrived at by that Commission cannot be anticipated.

9.42 p.m.

Mr. Driberg: In the minute or two that remains I should like to take one point that my right hon. Friend made, just a little further, and that is his very interesting point about prisoners of war. There are in the hands of the Allies now very large numbers, hundreds of thousands, of German prisoners, and it is only in fairly recent months that some of us in this House and alsewhere have interested ourselves in finding out to what extent there has been any segregation between Nazi and non-Nazi German prisoners of war. To condense as drastically as I can, my point is that after the war you will have ready to go back to Germany hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions, I do not know, of prisoners, extremely well fed, physically fit and completely Nazi in their outlook and doctrines, who have been looked after in the prison camps in this country, and even beter fed in the prison camps in America. It would surely be extremely dangerous to send those hundreds of thousands of men straight back to Germany and turn them

loose, in the rather difficult conditions, to put it mildly, that will prevail there, as a possible cadre of underground Nazi resistance. These men will have been cut off and protected from the disillusionment which is at present affecting the ordinary German people in their own country.
They have led a sheltered life in the prison camps, well fed, and still strictly Nazi in their outlook. I suggest that such men would form very suitable material indeed for the kind of labour to which my right hon. Friend referred as not being excluded by the terms of the statement which has already been made. We do not want any vindictiveness, or any inhumanity, but I am rather sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) chose to refer repeatedly, in a rather question-begging way, to "slavery," and to keep on using the word "slave" merely to bedevil the intentions and the good.faith of a great Ally.

Mr. Stokes: May I point out to my hon. Friend that I was not bedeviling—

Hon. Members: Order.

Adjourned accordingly at Sixteen Minutes to Ten o'Clock.